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

How the “Web” Unwelcome and Distorted Filtering of Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W Written Publications on Affirmative and Effective Consent in Healthy Sexual Relationships Led to Negative Reviews on Scribd

How the “Web” Unwelcome and Distorted Filtering of Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W Written Publications on Affirmative and Effective Consent in Healthy Sexual Relationships Led to Negative Reviews on Scribd

The Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL) regrets to inform members of the general public and representatives of the media (who may follow its work) that the written publications of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W on the subject of “affirmative and effective consent in healthy sexual relationships on American college/university campuses” were distorted by the “web” on Internet Search Engines (ISE) such as AOL, Bing/MSN and Yahoo before afterwards being negatively reviewed after they had been published on Scribd. Although Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W had not published some of his written content on “affirmative and effective consent in healthy sexual relationships” for the purpose of getting positive reviews on Scribd, he was nonetheless very much dismayed after he found out that his written content on that platform were distorted by the “web” before afterwards being harshly reviewed. Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W learned that his written content pertaining to “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relationships were [1] being distorted by the “web” after he had published them on Scribd on (or around) December 18th 2023; [2] negatively reviewed after being distorted on (or around) January 03rd 2024. At the time Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W began to publish some of his written content on how he was (in the month of January 2010) informed what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relationships after being told about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery; Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W had not signed any binding agreement that subjected his written content on Scribd 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 the “Student” for his published works on Scribd 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 Scribd while the so-called “web” took on the role of “Judge, Jury and Executioner.”

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 (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.”

Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Bachelor of Arts (B.A) Degree graduate of Westminster College (located in Fulton, Missouri) who was in January 2010 informed what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relations after being told about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery. Via email dated March 07th 2022, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have informed Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that (his alma mater) Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) had extended an invitation to their then Director William Webster to “deliver the 1987 Commencement Address on Sunday, May 17, 1987 at 2:30 P.M.” The invitation extended by Westminster College on August 29th 1986 came approximately five (5) months after the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery on the campus of Lehigh University (located in the State of Pennsylvania). In another email dated November 12th 2020, the FBI had informed Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that they had transferred the case of Jeanne Ann Clery rape and murder to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on (or around) June 11th 1992. However, via postal mail correspondence that was addressed to Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W, the CIA have denied ever being “assigned” the case of Jeanne Ann Clery on (or around) June 11th 1992. It is the opinion of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that the letters sent to him by the FBI (on or around November 12th 2020) and the CIA (on or around May 21st 2021) were inconsistent with one another. For your information (FYI), William Webster was director of the FBI from 1978 to 1987. He was also Director of the CIA from 1987 to 1991. His father Thomas H. Webster is an alumnus of Westminster College.

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 (beginning Calendar Year 1973) what constitutes 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 what constitute “affirmative and effective consent” in the years 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 waited so long to inform their students 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 (in American colleges/universities); [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)?

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 regrets the very bizarre frenzy that has surrounded his written publications pertaining to [1] how he was (in the month of January 2010 very formally) informed what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relationships after being told about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery; [2] his correspondence with the Department of Justice (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on how he was (in the month of January 2010) a full-time undergraduate student of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) when he was very formally informed what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relationships after being told about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery; [3] his correspondence with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on how he was (in the month of January 2010) a full-time undergraduate student of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) when he was very formally informed what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relationships after being told about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery; [4] the decision of the DOJ (FBI) to recognize on (or around) November 12th 2020 that they had transferred the case of Jeanne Ann Clery rape and murder to the CIA on (or around) June 11th 1992; [5] the decision of the CIA not to recognize on (or around) May 21st 2021 that they had indeed been transferred the case of Jeanne Ann Clery by the DOJ (FBI) on (or around) June 11th 1992; [6] how he was in the month of June 2016 informed that Brock Turner would likely be spending 90 (ninety) days at the Santa Clara County Jail after he was found guilty (in March 2016) of sexually assaulting Chanel Miller behind a dumpster on the campus of Stanford University on (or around) January 18th 2015.

Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W takes full responsibility for the statements he has made with regards to how he was informed about “affirmative and effective consent in healthy sexual relations” on the campus of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) when he was a full-time undergraduate student between the months of January through May 2010. Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W also takes full responsibility for the statements he has made with regards to how he was informed about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery on the campus of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) when he was a full-time undergraduate student between the months of January through May 2010.

Be well. Stay 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 12, 2024
Tweet

More Decks by Michael Ayele (W)

Other Decks in Research

Transcript

  1. 12/18/23, 7:19 AM Gmail - Recall: Web Filtering of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Written Content on the Subject of Jeanne Ann Clery
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-4247249743668712260&simpl=msg-a:r-42472497436687… 1/8
    Michael Ayele
    Recall: Web Filtering of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Written Content on the Subject of
    Jeanne Ann Clery
    Michael Ayele Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 7:18 AM
    To: Scribd
    Cc: Michael Ayele , "Michael Ayele (W)" , Michael Ayele

    W (AACL) Date.: December 18th 2023
    Michael A. Ayele
    P.O.Box 20438
    Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
    E-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
    "Web" Distorted Filtering of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Publications on Scribd Pertaining to Jeanne Ann Clery as well as
    Affirmative and Effective Consent
    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." Please see the
    screenshots I took of this below.
    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,

    View full-size slide

  2. 12/18/23, 7:19 AM Gmail - Recall: Web Filtering of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Written Content on the Subject of Jeanne Ann Clery
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-4247249743668712260&simpl=msg-a:r-42472497436687… 2/8
    Your request (#5088181) was last updated about a month ago, and we're
    checking in to see if you're still having trouble.
    Please see the request summary below. Our customer service team may be
    waiting for more information from you before we can assist you. If you're still
    having difficulty you may respond on the web or by replying to this email,
    whichever is most convenient for you.
    If your issue has been resolved or is no longer a concern, you may disregard
    this message. We don't want to bother you unnecessarily; if we don't hear from
    you in another month we'll send you one last reminder.
    Your request summary:
    Jason (Scribd)
    Nov 16, 2023, 10:20 AM PST
    Thank you for contacting Scribd and SlideShare.
    We are unable to process your request until you provide more information. The
    fastest way to submit a valid notification under the U.S. Digital Millennium
    Copyright Act (DMCA) is to use this form, which will capture all required
    information and then notify us immediately. Information that you send to us via
    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?
    I will encourage that you 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 Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 10:02 PM Scribd wrote:

    View full-size slide

  3. 12/18/23, 7:19 AM Gmail - Recall: Web Filtering of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Written Content on the Subject of Jeanne Ann Clery
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-4247249743668712260&simpl=msg-a:r-42472497436687… 3/8
    the DMCA notification form will not be used for any other purpose. Valid
    notifications are typically processed within two business days.
    Scribd (including Scribd.com, Slideshare.net, and the respective mobile apps) is a
    digital self-publishing and subscription reading service provider based in the United
    States of America. Our members and publishing partners provide content without
    pre-approval by Scribd.
    We take intellectual property rights very seriously and comply with all applicable
    provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998. It is our policy to
    remove infringing material when notified and to terminate repeat infringers. Since
    Scribd is based in the United States, a DMCA-compliant notification is the minimum
    that we can accept as proof-of-copyright, even if your country operates under
    different laws. We cannot process notifications that disregard DMCA criteria and
    provide incomplete information.
    Learn more about copyright, the DMCA, and our policies at the Help Center.
    Best regards,
    Jason Bentley
    Copyright, Abuse, and Privacy Manager
    The Scribd, Inc. Customer Service Team
    Questions? https://support.scribd.com/hc
    W
    Oct 8, 2023, 10:28 AM PDT
    W (AACL) Date.: October 08th
    2023
    Michael A. Ayele
    P.O.Box 20438
    Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
    E-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
    "Web" Summary of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Publication on Scribd Pertaining to
    Jean Seberg Defamation and Wiretap
    Hello,

    View full-size slide

  4. 12/18/23, 7:19 AM Gmail - Recall: Web Filtering of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Written Content on the Subject of Jeanne Ann Clery
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-4247249743668712260&simpl=msg-a:r-42472497436687… 4/8
    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 there
    are others unknown to me who were so very much eager to "summarize" one of my
    publications on Scribd that they've managed to do so by intrusively inserting
    themselves on my publication.
    Indeed, I regret to inform you that on the MSN/Bing Internet Search Engine (ISE),
    others have used one of my publications on Scribd to state that I have "accused the
    Los Angeles County Library of covering up the wiretap of Jean Seberg by the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)." However, I have done no such thing. At no
    point in time have I ever accused the Los Angeles County Library of "covering up the
    wiretap of Jean Seberg by the FBI." I don't know what would lead others to say those
    things. What the Los Angeles County Library have said is actually pretty
    straightforward and it is what I have reported. Although they have ties with the
    National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the Los Angeles Times, they
    have had no discussions about the defamation and wiretap of Jean Seberg. They
    have also had no discussions about the 2019 movie Kristen Stewart starred in as
    Jean Seberg.
    As you may be aware, Jean Seberg was born November 13th 1938 in the State of
    Iowa and at 14 (fourteen) years of age, she joined the National Association for the
    Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Although I am not 100% (one hundred
    percent) certain about this, I think she may have been one of the very 1st (first)
    Caucasian woman to join the NAACP in 1952. Personally, I think this is remarkable
    because it demonstrates how very open minded she was at a time when systemic
    racism and sexism was the norm (and there was very little resistance to it). Jean
    Seberg became the subject of a very infamous FBI wiretap as a direct consequence
    of her ties with the Black Panther Party. The FBI wiretap of Jean Seberg has
    had very adverse health consequences for her. I consider the 2019 movie of Kristen
    Stewart to be a classic because it covers Jean Seberg's life after the FBI made the
    very unfortunate decision to wiretap her. Her death on August 30th 1979 is also very
    strange and it's something I write about in my publication on Scribd.
    Can you explain how it is possible for others to intrusively insert themselves on
    Scribd to "summarize" the content of my publications on the MSN/Bing ISE in a
    manner that is inconsistent with what I have written? In other words, can you explain
    how it is possible for others to "summarize" the content of my publications on Scribd
    without my prior consent/approval?
    Please see the screenshots I have taken below of those "summaries" that were

    View full-size slide

  5. 12/18/23, 7:19 AM Gmail - Recall: Web Filtering of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Written Content on the Subject of Jeanne Ann Clery
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-4247249743668712260&simpl=msg-a:r-42472497436687… 5/8
    written on my Scribd publications.
    Thanks. 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
    P.S: Please disregard the previous email sent in error.
    --
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
    [email protected].
    Attachment(s)
    Screenshot (1600).png
    Screenshot (1599).png
    Screenshot (1598).png
    W
    Oct 8, 2023, 10:16 AM PDT
    W (AACL) Date.: October 08th
    2023
    Michael A. Ayele
    P.O.Box 20438
    Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
    E-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
    "Web" Summary of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Publication on Scribd Pertaining to
    Jean Seberg Defamation and Wiretap
    Hello,

    View full-size slide

  6. 12/18/23, 7:19 AM Gmail - Recall: Web Filtering of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Written Content on the Subject of Jeanne Ann Clery
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-4247249743668712260&simpl=msg-a:r-42472497436687… 6/8
    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 there
    are others unknown to me who were so very much eager to "summarize" one of my
    publications on Scribd that they've managed to do so by intrusively inserting
    themselves on my publication.
    Indeed, I regret to inform you that on the MSN/Bing Internet Search Engine (ISE),
    others have used one of my publications on Scribd to state that I have "accused the
    Los Angeles County Library of covering up the wiretap of Jean Seberg by the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)." However, I have done no such thing. At no
    point in time have I ever accused the Los Angeles County Library of "covering up the
    wiretap of Jean Seberg by the FBI." I don't know what would lead others to say those
    things. What the Los Angeles County Library have said is actually pretty
    straightforward and it is what I have reported. Although they have ties with the
    National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the Los Angeles Times, they
    have had no discussions about the defamation and wiretap of Jean Seberg. They
    have also had no discussions about the 2019 movie Kristen Stewart starred in as
    Jean Seberg.
    As you maybe aware, Jean Seberg was born November 13th 1938 in the State of
    Iowa and at 14 (fourteen) years of age, she joined the National Association for the
    Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Although I am not 100% (one hundred
    percent) certain about this, I think she may have been one of the very 1st (first)
    Caucasian woman to join the NAACP in 1952. Personally, I think this is remarkable
    because it demonstrates how very open minded she was at a time when systemic
    racism and sexism was the norm (and very little resistance to it). Jean Seberg
    became the subject of a very infamous FBI wiretap as a direct consequence of her
    ties with the Black Panther Party. The FBI wiretap of Jean Seberg has had a very
    adverse health consequences for her. I consider the 2019 movie of Kristen Stewart to
    be a classic because it covers Jean Seberg's life after the FBI made the very
    unfortunate decision to wiretap her. Her death on August 30th 1979 is also very
    strange and it's something I write about in my publication on Scribd.
    Can you explain how it is possible for others to intrusively insert themselves on
    Scribd to "summarize" the content of my publications on the MSN/Bing ISE in a
    manner that is inconsistent with what I have written? In other words, can you explain
    how it is possible for others to "summarize" the content of my publications on Scribd
    without my prior consent/approval?
    Please see the screenshots I have taken below of those "summaries" that were

    View full-size slide

  7. 12/18/23, 7:19 AM Gmail - Recall: Web Filtering of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Written Content on the Subject of Jeanne Ann Clery
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-4247249743668712260&simpl=msg-a:r-42472497436687… 7/8
    written on my Scribd publications.
    Thanks. 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
    --
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
    [email protected].
    Attachment(s)
    Screenshot (1599).png
    Screenshot (1598).png
    Screenshot (1600).png
    My requests Help center
    Scribd, Inc., 460 Bryant Street #100, San Francisco, CA, 94107, United States
    Everand, Scribd, and Slideshare are trademarks of Scribd, Inc. All rights reserved.
    [11DW6E-RVGNE]
    5 attachments

    View full-size slide

  8. 12/18/23, 7:19 AM Gmail - Recall: Web Filtering of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Written Content on the Subject of Jeanne Ann Clery
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-4247249743668712260&simpl=msg-a:r-42472497436687… 8/8
    Screenshot (81).png
    258K
    Screenshot (79).png
    154K
    Screenshot (83).png
    253K
    Screenshot (80).png
    180K
    Screenshot (82).png
    268K

    View full-size slide

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 12/3/23, 6:46 AM Gmail - Public Records Act Request
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1777394507752700387&simpl=msg-f:1777394507752700387 1/1
    Michael Ayele
    Public Records Act Request
    Williams, Mona Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 7:44 PM
    To: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" ,
    "[email protected]"
    Dear Mr. Ayele (W),
    The County of Santa Clara (“County”) has designated the Office of the County Counsel as the office responsible for
    receiving and coordinating public record requests, and as such, I am providing an initial response to your September 7,
    2023, California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request, which is attached. Pursuant to California Government Code
    section 7922.535(b) and (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 Monday, October 2, 2023.
    Thank you,
    Mona Mabengi Williams | 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) 299-5922 | Mobile: (669) 235-1956
    [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.
    Records Request on Brock Turner Sept 2016 College Speaking Tour After 90 Days in County Jail for Sexual
    Assault of Chanel Miller.pdf
    1968K

    View full-size slide

  22. 12/3/23, 6:48 AM Gmail - Public Records Act Request
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1778661207308023564&simpl=msg-f:1778661207308023564 1/2
    Michael Ayele
    Public Records Act Request
    Williams, Mona Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 7:18 PM
    To: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" ,
    "[email protected]"
    Dear Mr. Ayele (W),
    Attached please find the County’s production in response to your September 7, 2023, CPRA request, which is attached.
    Please note that the County redacted information that is not subject to disclosure in response to a CPRA request;
    information for which the public interest in not disclosing the information clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure;
    and other information that is non-responsive to your request or constitutes the private personal information of third
    parties. (See Gov. Code, § 7922.000; Evid. Code, § 1040; Cal. Const., art. 1, § 1.)
    This production completes the County’s response to your request under the CPRA; the County will be closing out your
    request.
    Kind regards,
    Mona Mabengi Williams | Lead 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) 299-5922 | Mobile: (669) 235-1956
    Pronouns: she/her/hers
    [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: Williams, Mona
    Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 9:45 AM
    To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
    Subject: Public Records Act Request
    Dear Mr. Ayele (W),

    View full-size slide

  23. 12/3/23, 6:48 AM Gmail - Public Records Act Request
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1778661207308023564&simpl=msg-f:1778661207308023564 2/2
    The County of Santa Clara (“County”) has designated the Office of the County Counsel as the office responsible for
    receiving and coordinating public record requests, and as such, I am providing an initial response to your September 7,
    2023, California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request, which is attached. Pursuant to California Government Code
    section 7922.535(b) and (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 Monday, October 2, 2023.
    Thank you,
    Mona Mabengi Williams | 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) 299-5922 | Mobile: (669) 235-1956
    [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.
    2 attachments
    9.7.2023_Brock-Turner.pdf
    1930K
    B.Turner_Report of Probation_redacted.pdf
    6882K

    View full-size slide

  24. State of Rhode Island
    Office of the General Treasurer
    James A. Diossa
    General Treasurer
    September 5, 2023
    Dear Michael A. Ayele:
    We write in response to your September 5, 2023 request for information pursuant to the Rhode
    Island Access to Public Records Act (APRA). Your specific request is noted below along with our
    corresponding response.
    This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W. You may call me W. I am
    writing this letter for the purpose of filing a request for records with your office.[i] The bases for
    this records request are [1] the September 2016 rumored Brock Turner “college speaking tour”
    on the subject of “alcohol and promiscuity” after he had spent 90 (ninety) days in county jail for
    sexually assaulting Chanel Miller while she was unconscious;[ii] [2] the dissenting opinion issued
    by Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji-Brown Jackson in the
    Students for Fair Admissions v University of North Carolina as well as President and Fellows of
    Harvard College case. [iii]
    I) Records Requested
    What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are records in your possession detailing your
    discussions about [1] Brock Allen Turner as a Caucasian man, who (i) began attending Stanford
    University as a Freshman student sometime in (or around) the month September 2014; (ii) was
    more likely than not informed what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy
    sexual relationships when he was a Freshman undergraduate student of Stanford University;[iv]
    (iii) was on (or around) January 10th 2015 accused of being sexually inappropriate with a female
    student who was (also) attending Stanford University;[v] (iv) was on (or around) January 18th
    2015 arrested for sexually assaulting Chanel Miller behind a dumpster (on the campus of
    Stanford University) while she was unconscious;[vi] (v) was on (or around) March 30th 2016
    found guilty of sexually assaulting and sexually penetrating Chanel Miller while she was
    unconscious despite his claims that he had not done so;[vii] (vi) was not remanded to custody on
    (or around) March 30th 2016 even though he had been found guilty of sexually assaulting
    Chanel Miller while she was unconscious; [viii] (vii) was on June 02nd 2016 sentenced to 6 (six)

    View full-size slide

  25. State of Rhode Island
    Office of the General Treasurer
    James A. Diossa
    General Treasurer
    months of county jail for the sexual assault he perpetrated on Chanel Miller; (viii) has gone on to
    be released from the Santa Clara county jail on (or around) September 02nd 2016 after serving
    90 (ninety) days of the six months jail sentence; (ix) was in the month of September 2016
    reported to have seriously considered going on a “college speaking tour” to warn young people
    of the risks associated with “alcohol drinking and promiscuity;” [2] Chanel Miller as a woman of
    Asian descent, who (i) was very much vexed by the 6 months jail sentence handed to Brock
    Turner on June 02nd 2016;[ix] (ii) believes that her life is worth significantly more than the 90
    day prison sentence Brock Turner ended up serving after he had sexually assaulted her;[x] (iii)
    has had a very unpleasant phone call with a probation officer in Santa Clara, California
    following the conviction of Brock Turner on March 30th 2016;[xi] [3] the decision of Supreme
    Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji-Brown Jackson to note that “it is not a
    stereotype to acknowledge the basic truth that young people’s experiences are shaded by a
    societal structure where race matters;” [4] fear of public speaking (or glossophobia) ranking as
    one of American’s greatest fears. [xii]
    II) Request for a Fee Waiver and Expedited Processing
    The requested records do/will demonstrate that [1] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man,
    who has never denied (i) having come to the United States of America (U.S.A) on an F-1 Visa in
    the month of December 2009 for the purpose of obtaining a Bachelor of Arts (B.A) Degree from
    Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri); (ii) having been informed what constitutes “affirmative
    and effective consent” in healthy sexual relationships during Calendar Year 2010 when he was
    an undergraduate student of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri); (iii) having been informed
    about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery during Calendar Year 2010
    when he was an undergraduate student of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri); (iv) having
    taken issue with manner in which he was informed about the rape and murder of Jeanne Ann
    Clery as well as the way he was informed about “consent;” (v) having initiated contact with the
    Department of Justice (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as well as the Central
    Intelligence Agency (CIA) about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery;[xiii]
    (vi) having become a member of the San Francisco Public Library (SFPL) sometime in the months
    of November/December 2014; (vii) having initiated contact with the SFPL about Chanel Miller’s
    memoir entitled: “Know My Name;” [xiv] [2] Chanel Miller is a woman of Asian descent, who (i)
    was on January 18th 2015 sexually assaulted (by Brock Turner) behind a dumpster on the
    campus of Stanford University; (ii) is an alumna of the University of California, Santa Barbara

    View full-size slide

  26. State of Rhode Island
    Office of the General Treasurer
    James A. Diossa
    General Treasurer
    (UCSB); (iii) became an alumna of the UCSB after having been traumatized by the May 23rd
    2014 horrific incident near that campus; (iv) recommended for Brock Turner to seek mental
    health counseling because she was afraid that he might do something similar to what Elliot
    Rodger did on May 23rd 2014;[xv] (v) who has never explicitly opposed the 6 (six) year prison
    sentence recommended by Alaleh Kianerci after Brock Turner was found guilty of sexually
    assaulting and sexually penetrating her; [3] Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena
    Kagan and Ketanji-Brown Jackson are women, who have (during the month of July 2023) been
    subjected to extensive media interest for writing (in part) that “it is not a stereotype to
    acknowledge the basic truth that young people’s experiences are shaded by a societal structure
    where race matters.”
    In my judgment, the facts presented in my 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), but more particularly in those of the U.S judicial branch of
    government. As a Black man with a U.S college degree, who was in January 2010 informed what
    constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relations, I would like to take
    this opportunity to [1] condemn violence committed against women irrespective of their racial
    backgrounds, their sexual orientations, their national origins, their religious affiliations and/or
    their disability status; [2] condemn the rape and murder Jeanne Ann Clery was victim of on April
    05th 1986 when she was an undergraduate student of Lehigh University (located in the State of
    Pennsylvania); [3] condemn the sexual assault Chanel Miller was victim of on January 18th 2015
    on the campus of Stanford University (located in the State of California); [4] express in writing
    the outrage I felt upon learning (sometime) in June 2016 that Brock Allen Turner was very likely
    going to be spending 90 (ninety) days in county jail even though he was on March 30th 2016
    found guilty of sexually assaulting and sexually penetrating Chanel Miller on the campus of
    Stanford University; [5] condemn the discrimination, the racism, the sexism and the many
    double standards I have had to (i) bear witness to and/or (ii) experience in person; [6] condemn
    gun related violence committed in the United States of America (U.S.A) and/or elsewhere
    around the globe; [7] condemn the horrific incident perpetrated on May 23rd 2014 near the
    UCSB by the sexist involuntary celibate (incel) Elliot Rodger.
    The core issues presented in this records request are as follows. 1) Have you ever had
    conversations about Americans fear of public speaking? If yes, will you promptly disclose those
    records? 2) Have you ever had conversations about the privilege and the entitlement a person is

    View full-size slide

  27. State of Rhode Island
    Office of the General Treasurer
    James A. Diossa
    General Treasurer
    born into if that person feels audacious enough to go on a “college speaking tour” for the
    purpose lecturing young people on subjects such as “alcohol drinking and promiscuity” after
    having registered as a sex-offender? If yes, will you will promptly disclose those records? 3) Have
    you ever had conversations about the privilege and the entitlement a person is born into if that
    person feels audacious enough to go on a “college speaking tour” for the purpose of lecturing
    young people on subjects such as “alcohol drinking and promiscuity” after having been found
    guilty of sexually assaulting a woman of color? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records?
    4) Have you ever had conversations about the 90-day jail sentence Brock Allen Turner served
    between June 02nd 2016 and September 02nd 2016 after he had been found guilty of sexually
    assaulting Chanel Miller (while she was unconscious)? If yes, will you promptly disclose those
    records? 5) Have you ever had conversations about the reasons why Brock Allen Turner spent 90
    days in county jail after he was found guilty of sexually assaulting Chanel Miller (while she was
    unconscious)? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 6) Have you ever had
    conversations about the strong likelihood that Brock Allen Turner was informed what
    constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” when he was an undergraduate student of
    Stanford University during Calendar Years 2014 – 2015? If yes, will you promptly disclose those
    records? 7) Have you ever had conversations about the reasons why female undergraduate
    students continue to suffer sexual violence (at alarming rates) even though the men are
    informed what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” during the course of their First
    (1st) year of post-secondary academic education/training (related to Title IX sessions)? If yes,
    will you promptly disclose those records? 8) Have you ever had conversations about “consent”
    being a politically contentious issue when it’s being addressed/dealt with by a Black man
    similarly situated to Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records?
    9) Have you ever had conversations about the dissenting opinion issued by Supreme Court
    Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji-Brown Jackson in the matter of Students for
    Fair Petition v University of North Carolina as well as Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College?
    If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 10) Have you ever had conversations about the
    decision of Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji-Brown Jackson to
    note that “it is not a stereotype to acknowledge the basic truth that young people’s experiences
    are shaded by a societal structure where race matters?” If yes, will you promptly disclose those
    records? 11) Have you ever had conversations about the May 23rd 2014 shooting and stabbing
    incident that was perpetrated by sexist incel Elliot Rodger near the UCSB? If yes, will you
    promptly disclose those records? 12) Have you ever had conversations about the reasons why
    Chanel Miller recommended for Brock Allen Turner to seek mental health therapy taking into

    View full-size slide

  28. State of Rhode Island
    Office of the General Treasurer
    James A. Diossa
    General Treasurer
    account that she’s an alumna of UCSB who was traumatized by the May 23rd 2014 incident
    near that campus? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 13) Have you ever had
    conversations about the reasons why the Santa Clara County Probation Department never asked
    Chanel Miller (in their discussions with them) if she was objecting to the 6-year prison sentence
    that had been recommended by District Attorney Alaleh Kianerci after Brock Turner was on
    March 30th 2016 found guilty of sexually assaulting Chanel Miller? If yes, will you disclose those
    records? 14) Have you ever had conversations about the decision of the State of California to (i)
    expand the legal definition of rape and (ii) impose mandatory minimum sentences following the
    90 days of county jail served by Brock Turner for the sexual assault of Chanel Miller? [xvi] 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 all the statements I have made to be true and accurate. Be well. Take
    care. Keep yourselves at arms distance.
    There are no responsive documents.
    If you contend you have been denied access to public records, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-
    2-8, you may appeal this decision to the Chief Administrative Officer at the Office of the
    General Treasurer (Gonzalo Cuervo, 82 Smith Street, Room 102, Providence, RI 02903), or to
    the Department of the Attorney General (150 South Main Street, Providence, RI 02903), or to
    the Rhode Island Superior Court through judicial action.
    Thank you for your interest in keeping government open and accountable to the public.

    View full-size slide

  29. State of Rhode Island
    Office of the General Treasurer
    James A. Diossa
    General Treasurer
    Public Records Officer - TK

    View full-size slide

  30. COUNTY OF KANE
    Kane County
    Finance Department
    719 Batavia Avenue
    Geneva, Illinois 60134
    (630) 208-5112
    Website: www.countyofkane.org
    W (AACL) - Michael A. Ayele
    [email protected]
    W (AACL) Michael A. Ayele P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia , Addis Ababa, 10013
    9355284300
    Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL)
    9/12/2023
    Thank you for writing to the County of Kane Finance Department with your request for information pursuant to the Illinois
    Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140/1 et seq.
    On September 5, 2023 you submitted the following FOIA Request to the Kane County Finance Department:
    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 for the purpose of filing a request for records with your office.[i] The bases for
    this records request are [1] the September 2016 rumored Brock Turner “college speaking
    tour” on the subject of “alcohol and promiscuity” after he had spent 90 (ninety) days in county
    jail for sexually assaulting Chanel Miller while she was unconscious;[ii] [2] the dissenting
    opinion issued by Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji-Brown
    Jackson in the Students for Fair Admissions v University of North Carolina as well as President
    and Fellows of Harvard College case. [iii]
    I) Records Requested
    What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are records in your possession detailing your
    discussions about [1] Brock Allen Turner as a Caucasian man, who (i) began attending Stanford
    University as a Freshman student sometime in (or around) the month September 2014; (ii) was
    more likely than not informed what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy
    sexual relationships when he was a Freshman undergraduate student of Stanford
    University;[iv] (iii) was on (or around) January 10th 2015 accused of being sexually
    inappropriate with a female student who was (also) attending Stanford University;[v] (iv) was on
    (or around) January 18th 2015 arrested for sexually assaulting Chanel Miller behind a dumpster
    (on the campus of Stanford University) while she was unconscious;[vi] (v) was on (or around)
    March 30th 2016 found guilty of sexually assaulting and sexually penetrating Chanel Miller
    while she was unconscious despite his claims that he had not done so;[vii] (vi) was not remanded
    to custody on (or around) March 30th 2016 even though he had been found guilty of sexually
    assaulting Chanel Miller while she was unconscious; [viii] (vii) was on June 02nd 2016
    sentenced to 6 (six) months of county jail for the sexual assault he perpetrated on Chanel Miller;

    View full-size slide

  31. 2 | P a g e
    (viii) has gone on to be released from the Santa Clara county jail on (or around) September 02nd
    2016 after serving 90 (ninety) days of the six months jail sentence; (ix) was in the month of
    September 2016 reported to have seriously considered going on a “college speaking tour” to
    warn young people of the risks associated with “alcohol drinking and promiscuity;” [2] Chanel
    Miller as a woman of Asian descent, who (i) was very much vexed by the 6 months jail sentence
    handed to Brock Turner on June 02nd 2016;[ix] (ii) believes that her life is worth significantly
    more than the 90 day prison sentence Brock Turner ended up serving after he had sexually
    assaulted her;[x] (iii) has had a very unpleasant phone call with a probation officer in Santa
    Clara, California following the conviction of Brock Turner on March 30th 2016;[xi] [3] the
    decision of Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji-Brown Jackson
    to note that “it is not a stereotype to acknowledge the basic truth that young people’s experiences
    are shaded by a societal structure where race matters;” [4] fear of public speaking (or
    glossophobia) ranking as one of American’s greatest fears. [xii]
    II) Request for a Fee Waiver and Expedited Processing
    The requested records do/will demonstrate that [1] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man,
    who has never denied (i) having come to the United States of America (U.S.A) on an F-1 Visa in
    the month of December 2009 for the purpose of obtaining a Bachelor of Arts (B.A) Degree from
    Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri); (ii) having been informed what constitutes “affirmative
    and effective consent” in healthy sexual relationships during Calendar Year 2010 when he was
    an undergraduate student of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri); (iii) having been informed
    about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery during Calendar Year 2010
    when he was an undergraduate student of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri); (iv) having
    taken issue with manner in which he was informed about the rape and murder of Jeanne Ann
    Clery as well as the way he was informed about “consent;” (v) having initiated contact with the
    Department of Justice (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as well as the Central
    Intelligence Agency (CIA) about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann
    Clery;[xiii] (vi) having become a member of the San Francisco Public Library (SFPL) sometime
    in the months of November/December 2014; (vii) having initiated contact with the SFPL about
    Chanel Miller’s memoir entitled: “Know My Name;” [xiv] [2] Chanel Miller is a woman of
    Asian descent, who (i) was on January 18th 2015 sexually assaulted (by Brock Turner) behind a
    dumpster on the campus of Stanford University; (ii) is an alumna of the University of California,
    Santa Barbara (UCSB); (iii) became an alumna of the UCSB after having been traumatized by
    the May 23rd 2014 horrific incident near that campus; (iv) recommended for Brock Turner to
    seek mental health counseling because she was afraid that he might do something similar to what
    Elliot Rodger did on May 23rd 2014;[xv] (v) who has never explicitly opposed the 6 (six) year
    prison sentence recommended by Alaleh Kianerci after Brock Turner was found guilty of
    sexually assaulting and sexually penetrating her; [3] Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor,
    Elena Kagan and Ketanji-Brown Jackson are women, who have (during the month of July 2023)
    been subjected to extensive media interest for writing (in part) that “it is not a stereotype to

    View full-size slide

  32. 3 | P a g e
    acknowledge the basic truth that young people’s experiences are shaded by a societal structure
    where race matters.”
    In my judgment, the facts presented in my 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), but more particularly in those of the U.S judicial branch of
    government. As a Black man with a U.S college degree, who was in January 2010 informed what
    constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relations, I would like to take
    this opportunity to [1] condemn violence committed against women irrespective of their racial
    backgrounds, their sexual orientations, their national origins, their religious affiliations and/or
    their disability status; [2] condemn the rape and murder Jeanne Ann Clery was victim of on April
    05th 1986 when she was an undergraduate student of Lehigh University (located in the State of
    Pennsylvania); [3] condemn the sexual assault Chanel Miller was victim of on January 18th 2015
    on the campus of Stanford University (located in the State of California); [4] express in writing
    the outrage I felt upon learning (sometime) in June 2016 that Brock Allen Turner was very likely
    going to be spending 90 (ninety) days in county jail even though he was on March 30th 2016
    found guilty of sexually assaulting and sexually penetrating Chanel Miller on the campus of
    Stanford University; [5] condemn the discrimination, the racism, the sexism and the many
    double standards I have had to (i) bear witness to and/or (ii) experience in person; [6] condemn
    gun related violence committed in the United States of America (U.S.A) and/or elsewhere
    around the globe; [7] condemn the horrific incident perpetrated on May 23rd 2014 near the
    UCSB by the sexist involuntary celibate (incel) Elliot Rodger.
    The core issues presented in this records request are as follows. 1) Have you ever had
    conversations about Americans fear of public speaking? If yes, will you promptly disclose those
    records? 2) Have you ever had conversations about the privilege and the entitlement a person is
    born into if that person feels audacious enough to go on a “college speaking tour” for the
    purpose lecturing young people on subjects such as “alcohol drinking and promiscuity” after
    having registered as a sex-offender? If yes, will you will promptly disclose those records? 3)
    Have you ever had conversations about the privilege and the entitlement a person is born into if
    that person feels audacious enough to go on a “college speaking tour” for the purpose of
    lecturing young people on subjects such as “alcohol drinking and promiscuity” after having been
    found guilty of sexually assaulting a woman of color? If yes, will you promptly disclose those
    records? 4) Have you ever had conversations about the 90-day jail sentence Brock Allen Turner
    served between June 02nd 2016 and September 02nd 2016 after he had been found guilty of
    sexually assaulting Chanel Miller (while she was unconscious)? If yes, will you promptly
    disclose those records? 5) Have you ever had conversations about the reasons why Brock Allen
    Turner spent 90 days in county jail after he was found guilty of sexually assaulting Chanel Miller
    (while she was unconscious)? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 6) Have you ever
    had conversations about the strong likelihood that Brock Allen Turner was informed what
    constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” when he was an undergraduate student of
    Stanford University during Calendar Years 2014 – 2015? If yes, will you promptly disclose those
    records? 7) Have you ever had conversations about the reasons why female undergraduate
    students continue to suffer sexual violence (at alarming rates) even though the men are informed

    View full-size slide

  33. 4 | P a g e
    what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” during the course of their First (1st) year of
    post-secondary academic education/training (related to Title IX sessions)? If yes, will you
    promptly disclose those records? 8) Have you ever had conversations about “consent” being a
    politically contentious issue when it’s being addressed/dealt with by a Black man similarly
    situated to Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 9)
    Have you ever had conversations about the dissenting opinion issued by Supreme Court Justices
    Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji-Brown Jackson in the matter of Students for Fair
    Petition v University of North Carolina as well as Presidents and Fellows of Harvard
    College? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 10) Have you ever had conversations
    about the decision of Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji-Brown
    Jackson to note that “it is not a stereotype to acknowledge the basic truth that young people’s
    experiences are shaded by a societal structure where race matters?” If yes, will you promptly
    disclose those records? 11) Have you ever had conversations about the May 23rd 2014 shooting
    and stabbing incident that was perpetrated by sexist incel Elliot Rodger near the UCSB? If yes,
    will you promptly disclose those records? 12) Have you ever had conversations about the reasons
    why Chanel Miller recommended for Brock Allen Turner to seek mental health therapy taking
    into account that she’s an alumna of UCSB who was traumatized by the May 23rd 2014 incident
    near that campus? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 13) Have you ever had
    conversations about the reasons why the Santa Clara County Probation Department never asked
    Chanel Miller (in their discussions with them) if she was objecting to the 6-year prison sentence
    that had been recommended by District Attorney Alaleh Kianerci after Brock Turner was on
    March 30th 2016 found guilty of sexually assaulting Chanel Miller? If yes, will you disclose
    those records? 14) Have you ever had conversations about the decision of the State of California
    to (i) expand the legal definition of rape and (ii) impose mandatory minimum sentences
    following the 90 days of county jail served by Brock Turner for the sexual assault of Chanel
    Miller? [xvi] 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 all the
    statements I have made to be true and accurate. Be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms
    distance.
    W (AACL)
    Michael A. Ayele

    View full-size slide

  34. 5 | P a g e
    Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist
    Audio-Visual Media Analyst
    Anti-Propaganda Journalist
    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 disclosed to me could be made available to the general public at no financial expense to
    them. On December 10th 2021, I have launched a website on Wordpress.com for the purpose of
    making the records previously disclosed to me by the U.S government further accessible to
    members of the general public interested in the activities of their elected and non-elected
    representatives. You can find out more about the recent publications of the Association for the
    Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL) here.: https://michaelayeleaacl.wordpress.com/
    [ii] September 09th 2016 Conversation Between Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian on the Subject
    of Rapist Brock Turner “College Speaking Tour”
    Ana Kasparian.: As if the injustice involved in the Brock Turner case couldn’t get any worse,
    there are now reports that he could possibly tour high-school campuses in order to give speeches
    to students about the negative impact of alcohol and promiscuity. (…) So, during this case, and
    for those of you who might have missed this story, Brock Turner was the former Stanford
    University swimmer who was caught raping a woman who was unconscious behind a dumpster.
    He was found guilty and he got a six months jail sentence that was cut short to only three months
    because of “good behavior.”
    According to Mediaite, “there was talk during the trial of him launching a speaking tour during
    which he would visit high schools and give lectures on ‘drinking and promiscuity,’ and now that
    idea is back in the spotlight.” This story is now in the spotlight because a Stanford University
    professor (Ruth Starkman) just wrote an opinion piece in the Huffington Post in which she very
    correctly stated: “Until Brock Turner apologizes, he should not be allowed to speak on
    campuses. Any campus appearance must be conditioned on his taking full responsibility for his
    actions, apologizing to the victim, and condemning sexual assault.” He has refused to do all
    three things even after his convictions. (…)

    View full-size slide

  35. 6 | P a g e
    Cenk Uygur.: To me, the most unbelievable part of the story (…) is the drinking part. It seems
    like he’s saying: “Don’t drink too much. Otherwise, you will go on to rape women behind a
    dumpster.”
    Ana Kasparian.: Yeah, there are plenty of people who drink, get drunk and aren’t immediately
    convinced that it’s a good idea to go rape people.
    Cenk Uygur.: It seems like he didn’t get it at all. (…) It definitely sounds as though he’s looking
    to go around campuses saying that she (Chanel Miller) wasn’t raped. (…) She was being
    promiscuous.
    Ana Kasparian.: That’s exactly right!
    Cenk Uygur.: Oh my God! (…)
    Ana Kasparian.: He could possibly do this speaking tour and get paid for it! (…) His message is
    a really bad message that rewards bad behavior. (…)
    Cenk Uygur.: The bigger injustice is that he gets a lenient sentence while others do not. We have
    an unequal justice system. I don’t want people coming away from this thinking: “We’ve got to be
    harsher on all defendants.” We just want an equal justice system. Either treat everybody like
    Brock Turner or treat everyone harshly, but have one system, not unequal justice. That’s the
    main point.
    Rapist Brock Turner College Speaking Tour? The Young Turks.
    YouTube.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRTwp0vnbbo&t=96s
    [iii] The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrines a guarantee of racial
    equality. The Court long ago concluded that this guarantee can be enforced through race-
    conscious means in a society that is not, and has never been colorblind. In Brown v Board of
    Education, (…) the Court recognized the constitutional necessity of racially integrated schools in
    light of the harm inflicted by segregation and the “importance of education to our democratic
    society.” For 45 years, the Court extended Brown’s transformative legacy to the context of
    higher education, allowing colleges and universities to consider race in a limited way and for the
    limited purpose of promoting the important benefits of racial diversity. This limited use of race
    has helped equalize educational opportunities for all students of every race and background and
    has improved racial diversity on college campuses. Although progress has been slow and
    imperfect, race conscious college admission policies have advanced the Constitution’s guarantee
    of equality and have promoted Brown’s vision of a Nation with more inclusive schools.
    Today, this Court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous
    progress. It holds that race can no longer be used in a limited way in college admissions to
    achieve such critical benefits. In so holding, the Court cements a superficial rule of
    colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has
    always mattered and continues to matter. The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of

    View full-size slide

  36. 7 | P a g e
    equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our
    democratic government and pluralistic society. Because the Court’s opinion is not grounded in
    law or fact and contravenes the vision of equality embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment, I
    dissent.
    Equal educational opportunity is a prerequisite to achieving racial equality in our Nation. From
    its founding, the United States was a new experiment in a republican form of government where
    democratic participation and the capacity to engage in self-rule were vital. At the same time,
    American society was structured around the profitable institution that was slavery, which the
    original Constitution protected. The Constitution initially limited the power of Congress to
    restrict the slave trade, (…) accorded Southern States additional electoral power by counting
    three fifth of their enslaved population in apportioning congressional seats, (…) and gave
    enslavers the right to retrieve enslaved people who escaped to free States (…). Because a
    foundational pillar of slavery was the racist notion that Black people are a subordinate class
    with intellectual inferiority, Southern States sought to ensure slavery’s longevity by prohibiting
    the education of Black people, whether enslaved or free. (…) Thus, from this Nation’s birth, the
    freedom to learn was neither colorblind nor equal. (…)
    With time, and at the tremendous cost of the Civil War, abolition came. More than two centuries
    after the first African enslaved persons were forcibly brought to our shores, Congress adopted
    the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished “slavery” and “involuntary
    servitude, except as a punishment for crime.” (…) “Like all great historical transformation,”
    emancipation was a movement, “not a single event” owed to any single individual, institution or
    political party. (…) The fight for equal educational opportunity, however, was a key driver.
    Literacy was an “instrument of resistance and liberation.” (…) Education “provided the means
    to write a pass to freedom” and “to learn of abolitionist activities.” (…) It allowed enslaved
    Black people “to disturb the power relations between master and slave,” which “fused their
    desire for literacy with their desire for freedom.” (…) Put simply, “the very feeling of inferiority
    which slavery forced upon Black people fathered an intense desire to rise out of their condition
    by means of education.” (…)
    Racially integrated schools improve cross-racial understanding, “break down racial
    stereotypes,” and ensure that students obtain the “skills needed in today’s increasingly global
    marketplace…through exposure to widely diverse people, culture, ideas and viewpoints.” (…)
    More broadly, inclusive institutions that are “visibly open to talented and qualified individuals
    of every race and ethnicity” instill public confidence in the “legitimacy” and “integrity” of those
    institutions and the diverse set of graduates they cultivate. That is particularly true in the context
    of higher education, where colleges and universities play a critical role in “maintaining the
    fabric of society” and serve as “the training ground for a larger number of our Nation’s
    leaders.” (…) It is thus an objective of the highest order, a “compelling interest” indeed, that
    universities pursue the benefits of racial diversity and ensure that the “diffusion of knowledge
    and opportunity” is available to students of all races.
    This compelling interest in student body diversity is grounded not only in the Court’s equal
    protection jurisprudence but also in principles of “academic freedom,” which “long have been

    View full-size slide

  37. 8 | P a g e
    viewed as a special concern of the First Amendment.” In light of the “important purpose of
    public education and the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the
    university environment,” this Court’s precedents recognize the imperative nature of diverse
    student bodies on American college campuses. Consistent with the First Amendment, student
    body diversity allows universities to promote “the robust exchange of ideas which discovers
    truth out of a multitude of tongues rather than through any kind of authoritative selection.”
    Indeed, as the Court recently reaffirmed in another school case, “learning how to tolerate
    diverse expressive activities has always been ‘part of learning how live in a pluralistic society’”
    under our constitutional tradition. (…)
    In short, for more than four decades, it has been this Court’s settled law that the Equal
    Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment authorizes a limited use of race in college
    admissions in service of the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. From
    Brown to Fisher, this Court’s cases have sought to equalize educational opportunity in a society
    structured by racial segregation and to advance the Fourteenth Amendment’s vision of an
    America where racially integrated schools guarantee students of all races the equal protection of
    the laws.
    Today, the Court concludes that indifference to race is the only constitutionally permissible
    means to achieve racial equality in college admissions. That interpretations of the Fourteenth
    Amendment is not only contrary of precedent and the entire teaching of our history, (…) but is
    also grounded in the illusion that racial inequality was a problem of a different generation.
    Entrenched racial inequality remains a reality today. That is true for society writ large and,
    more specifically, for Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC), two institutions with
    a long history of racial exclusion. Ignoring race will not equalize a society that is racially
    unequal. What was true in the 1860s, and again in 1954, is true today: Equality requires
    acknowledgment of inequality. (…)
    These opportunity gaps “result in fewer students from underrepresented backgrounds even
    applying to” college, particularly elite universities. (…) “Because talent lives everywhere, but
    opportunity does not, there are undoubtedly talented students with great academic potential who
    have simply not had the opportunity to attain the traditional indicia of merit that provide a
    competitive edge in the admission process.” (…) Put simply, society remains “inherently
    unequal.” (…) Racial inequality runs deep to this very day. That is particularly true in
    education, the “’most vital civic institution for the preservation of a democratic system of
    government.’” Plyler v Doe. (…) As I have explained before, only with eyes open to this reality
    can the Court “carry out the guarantee of equal protection.”
    Both UNC and Harvard have sordid legacies of racial exclusion. Because “context matters”
    when reviewing race-conscious college admissions programs, (…) this reality informs the
    exigency of respondents’ current admissions policies and their racial diversity goals.
    For much of its history, UNC was a bastion of white supremacy. Its leadership included
    “slaveholders, the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan, the central figures in the white supremacy
    campaigns of 1898 and 1900, and many of the State’s most ardent defenders of the Jim Crow

    View full-size slide

  38. 9 | P a g e
    and race-based Social Darwinism in the twentieth century.” (…) The university excluded all
    people of color from its faculty and student body, glorified the institution of slavery, enforced its
    own Jim Crow regulations, and punished any dissent from racial orthodoxy. (…) It resisted
    racial integration after this Court’s decision in Brown, and was forced to integrate by court
    order in 1955. (…) It took almost 10 more years for the first Black woman to enroll at the
    university in 1963. (…) Even then, the university admitted only a handful of underrepresented
    racial minorities, and those students suffered constant harassment, humiliation, and isolation.
    (…) UNC officials openly resisted racial integration well into the 1980s, years after the youngest
    Member of this Court was born. During that period, Black students faced racial epithets and
    stereotypes, received hate mail, and encouraged Ku Klux Klan rallies on campus. (…)
    To this day, UNC’s deep-seated legacy of racial subjugation continues to manifest itself in
    student life. Buildings on campus still bear the names of members of the Ku Klux Klan and other
    white supremacist leaders. Students of color also continue to experience racial harassment,
    isolation and tokenism. Plus, the student body remains predominantly white: approximately 72%
    of UNC students identify as white, while only 8% identify as Black. These numbers do not reflect
    the diversity of the State, particularly Black North Carolinians, who make up 22% of the
    population. (…)
    UNC is not alone. Harvard, like other Ivy League universities in our country, “stood beside
    church and state as the third pillar of a civilization built on bondage.” (…) From Harvard’s
    founding, slavery and racial subordination were integral parts of the institution’s funding,
    intellectual production, and campus life. Harvard and its donors had extensive financial ties to,
    and profited from, the slave trade, the labor of enslaved people, and slavery-related investments.
    (…) Harvard’s leadership and prominent professors openly promoted “’race science,’” racist
    eugenics, and other theories rooted in racial hierarchy. Activities to advance these theories
    “took place on campus,” including “intrusive physical examinations” and “photographing of
    unclothed” students. The university also “prized the admission of academically able Anglo-
    Saxon students from elite backgrounds – including wealthy white sons of the South.” By contrast,
    an average of three Black students enrolled at Harvard each year during the five decades
    between 1890 and 1940. (…) Those Black students who managed to enroll at Harvard “excelled
    academically, earning equal or better academic records than most white students,” but faced the
    challenges of the deeply rooted legacy of slavery and racism on campus. (…) Meanwhile, a few
    women of color attended Radcliffe College, a separate and overwhelmingly white “women’s
    annex” where racial minorities were denied campus housing and scholarships. (…) Women of
    color at Radcliffe were taught by Harvard professors, but “women did not receive Harvard
    degrees until 1963.” (…)
    Today, benefactors with ties to slavery and white supremacy continue to be memorialized across
    campus through “statues, buildings, professorships, student houses, and the like.” (…) Black
    and Latino applicants account for only 20% of domestic applicants to Harvard each year. “Even
    though those students of color who beat the odds and earn an offer of admission” continue to
    experience isolation and alienation on campus. (…) For example, Harvard has reported that
    “far too many Black students at Harvard experience feelings of isolation and marginalization,”

    View full-size slide

  39. 10 | P a g e
    (…) and that “student survey data showed that only half of Harvard undergraduates believe that
    the housing system fosters exchanges between students of different backgrounds.” (…)
    These may be uncomfortable truths to some, but they are truths nonetheless. “Institutions can
    and do change,” however, as societal and legal changes force them “to live up to their highest
    ideals.” (…) The majority’s true objection appears to be that a limited use of race in college
    admission does, in fact, achieve what it is designed to achieve: It helps equalize opportunity and
    advances respondents’ objective by increasing the number of underrepresented racial minorities
    on college campuses, particularly Black and Latino students. This is unacceptable, the Court
    says, because racial groups that are not underrepresented “would be admitted in greater
    numbers” without these policies. (…) Reduced to its simplest terms, the Court’s conclusion is
    that an increase in the representation of racial minorities at institutions of higher learning that
    were historically reserved for white Americans is an unfair and repugnant outcome that offends
    the Equal Protection Clause. It provides a license to discriminate against white Americans, the
    Court says, which requires the courts and state actors to “pick the rights races to benefit.”
    Nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment or its history supports the Court’s shocking proposition,
    which echoes arguments made by opponents of Reconstruction era laws and this Court’s
    decision in Brown. (…) In a society where opportunity is dispensed along racial lines, racial
    equality cannot be achieved without making room for underrepresented groups that for far too
    long were denied admission through the force of law, including at Harvard and UNC. (…) By
    singling out race, the Court imposes a special burden on racial minorities for whom race is a
    crucial component of their identity. Holistic admission requires “truly individualized
    consideration” of the whole person. (…) Yet, “by foreclosing racial considerations,
    colorblindness denies those who racially self-identify the full expression of their identity” and
    treats “racial identity as inferior” among all “other forms of social identity.” (…) In a single
    paragraph at the end of its lengthy opinion, the Court suggests that “nothing” in today’s opinion
    prohibits universities from considering a student’s essay that explains “how race affected that
    student’s life.” (…) This supposed recognition that universities can, in some situations, consider
    race in application essays is nothing but an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. The Court’s opinion
    circumscribes universities ability to consider race in any form by meticulously gutting
    respondents’ asserted diversity interests. (…) Yet, because the Court cannot escape the
    inevitable truth that race matters in students’ lives, it announces false promise to save face and
    appear attuned to reality. No one is fooled. (…) In the end, the Court merely imposes its
    preferred college application format on the Nation, not acting as a court of law applying
    precedent but taking on the role of college administrators to decide what is better for society.
    The Court’s course reflects its inability to recognize that racial identity informs students
    viewpoints and experiences in unique ways. The Courts goes as far as to claim that Bakke’s
    recognition that Black Americans can offer different perspectives than white people amounts to a
    “stereotype.” (…) It is not a stereotype to acknowledge the basic truth that young people’s
    experiences are shaded by a societal structure where race matters. Justice Sonya Sotomayor
    Dissenting in the Matter of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., v President and Fellows of
    Harvard College and University of North
    Carolina. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

    View full-size slide

  40. 11 | P a g e
    [iv] According to the 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 (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.” About “Affirmative and Effective Consent” on U.S College
    Campuses. Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W. Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties
    (AACL).: https://michaelayeleaacl.wordpress.com/2022/11/02/affirmative-and-effective-
    consent-in-healthy-sexual-relationships-on-college-campuses-index/
    [v] Brock Turner wrote: “Before this happened, I never had any trouble with law enforcement
    and I plan on maintaining that.” On November 15th 2014, three months before my assault,
    Deputy Shaw spotted a few young men walking through Stanford campus with beer cans. When
    apprehended, they ran. One guy was caught and detained, confessed the guy who escaped was
    Brock Turner. He was summoned back. The police noted: He returned wearing a bright orange
    tuxedo and Deputy Shaw smelled the odor of alcohol on him…He had a black backpack on with
    Coors Lights beers inside, as well as a beer and knew he was not supposed to have it because he
    was not 21 years old. He stated that when he saw Deputy Shaw approach, he made the decision
    to run. While running, he heard the verbal commands to stop, but continued evading. He said it
    was a split-second decision and he regretted making it. Deputy Shaw would be the one to
    photography my body three after this incident.
    Six months after my assault, two young women found Detective Kim and reported they’d
    encountered Brock at the Kappa Alpha (KA) fraternity the weekend before I was assaulted. The
    police report noted: He put his hat on her and she took it off. He then started to dance behind her
    and tried to turn her around to face him. She felt uncomfortable and tried to turn her body away
    so that he would not be directly “behind” her. He became really “touchy” and put his hands on
    her waist and stomach. He even put his hands on her upper thighs. She felt more exceedingly
    uncomfortable and got down off of the table. She said the Defendant “creeped” her out because
    of his persistence. Chapter 10. Chanel Miller: Know My Name.
    September 2014: Turner starts attending Stanford University on a swimming scholarship.
    November 15th 2014: Turner and several teammates are chased by police after officers see the
    group walking on campus drinking beer. The group had been on its way to a football game when
    they scattered after an officer shouted for them to stop. Two officers chase the teens through

    View full-size slide

  41. 12 | P a g e
    campus, finally catching one. The detained swimmer calls Turner and told him to return and talk
    with police. Turner, who was wearing an orange tuxedo, returns and apologizes for running
    away. He receives and ticked for being a minor in possession of alcohol. (…)
    January 10th 2015: Turner attends a party at Kappa Alpha fraternity house. A female Stanford
    student who lived in Turner’s dorm building introduces a friend to him. The friend later tells
    police Turner “creeped her out” and was “grabby” with her because he was placing his hands
    on her waist, stomach and thigh while they were dance. The friend says she didn’t invite Turner
    to dance with her nor did she seek his physical attention. She tells police she left the dance floor
    to get away from Turner. Timeline of significant dates in the life of Brock Turner. Associated
    Press.: https://apnews.com/general-news-962a8de554994637afce94a22afb78e9
    [vi] I clicked back to the news of my homepage, saw Stanford athlete, saw raping, saw
    unconscious woman. I clicked again, my screen filled with two blue eyes and a neat row of teeth,
    freckles, red tie, black suit. I had never seen this man before. Brock Turner. I read he had been
    charged with five felony counts: rape of an intoxicated person, rape of an unconscious person,
    sexual penetration by a foreign object of an intoxicated woman, sexual penetration by a foreign
    object of an unconscious woman, assault with intent to commit rape. Too many words, jumbled
    together. Read it again, slower. I typed into Google, what is a foreign object. The panic was
    quiet and slow. It was defined as an object that intrudes where it should not be, as into a living
    body or machinery. Examples include: a speck of dust in the eye, splinter, wood chip, fishhook,
    glass. What intruded into me. The article mentioned the victim had been digitally penetrated. My
    mind went to digital cameras. I Googled that too. Digital, Latin root digitalis, from digitus
    “finger, toe.” He must have fingered her, me. Google finally sat me down and broke the news.
    (…)
    The news linked to a police report, I clicked, scrolling, looking for victim, victim, victim. I found
    the deputy’s carefully written notes. I found the female subject, later identified as VICTIM. I
    found her on the ground behind the dumpster. I found her wearing a black, skin tight dress. I
    found her dress had been pulled up to about her hips, and was gathered near her waist. Her
    entire buttocks were uncovered, and she was not wearing any underwear. I found her lower
    abdomen and pubic area was visible. I found her vagina and butt. I found her long hair was
    disheveled, knotted and completely covered in pine needles all throughout. I found her lying in a
    position with her feet and legs bent in a 45 – 90-degree angle (fetal position) and her arms were
    in front of her chest with her hands on the ground near her face. I found her dress stretched
    down over both shoulders, bra pulled out. I found it was only covering her right breast. I found
    the necklace wrapped all the way around her neck so that the pendant portion was now centered
    on her back. I found a pair of white with black polka-dot panties lying bunched up on the ground
    about 6 inches in front of VICTIM’s stomach. I found her silver iPhone on the ground behind her
    buttocks. There was a blue cell phone case that was approximately 4 inches away, separated
    from the iPhone. I found she was wearing brown boots that were still laced, with the laces tied in
    a bow. (…) So on that January morning in 2015, reading the story of the Stanford assault on the
    news was like being read a letter. Sorry to inform you, impersonal and flat. (…) It was about a

    View full-size slide

  42. 13 | P a g e
    sad and strange rape on a local campus, a body found stripped and disheveled. This time, it was
    my name. (…) Chapter 2. Chanel Miller: Know My Name.
    [vii] Stanford swimmer denies alleged rape. I almost choked, felt I’d been slapped hard in the
    chest. This article had a trigger warning, this version more graphic, I brushed it aside, clicked
    the police report, eyes sliding back and forth. Throughout the night, Turner hooked up with a few
    girls. In the report, all the people he’d kissed were named girls, but because he’d assaulted me, I
    was never called girl, only victim. He stated that he kissed VICTIM while on the ground. He took
    off the VICTIM’s underwear and fingered her vagina. He also touched the VICTIM’s breasts.
    (…) Turner does not know the identity of VICTIM. He never got her name and was not able to
    really describe her. He stated that he probably would not be able to recognize victim if he saw
    her again. (…) He was having a good time with VICTIM and stated that she also seemed to enjoy
    the activity. Enjoy. I stared at this word, a little thing I did not recognize. (…) I called my DA,
    Hey! Did you see this? He said I liked it! How is that even possible? I can’t believe this; can you
    believe this? What is this? I was half laughing, incredulous. But she did not match my tone. I
    know, she said. I know. She sighed the way you do before you begin a sentence with
    unfortunately or regrettably. She explained that pleading not guilty was a predicted formality.
    This was to be expected. But I’m telling you now, I said, I didn’t enjoy it. I don’t know who he is.
    He doesn’t even know what I look like. Chapter 2. Chanel Miller: Know My Name.
    On Wednesday, a jury found former Stanford swimmer Brock Turner guilty of sexually
    assaulting an unconscious and intoxicated young woman outside a fraternity house. 20-year-old
    Turner was arrested Jan. 18, 2015, after two graduate students found him on top of an unmoving
    woman outside Kappa Alpha fraternity at approximately 1 a.m. Turner subsequently withdrew
    from Stanford and was charged with five felony counts, later reduced to three: assault with intent
    to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person, sexual penetration of an intoxicated
    person and sexual penetration of an unconscious person. Turner has been convicted on all
    counts. Brock Turner found guilty on three felony counts. The Stanford
    Daily.: https://stanforddaily.com/2016/03/30/brock-turner-found-guilty-on-three-felony-counts/
    A lawyer for Brock Turner, the former Stanford student convicted of sexually assaulting an
    unconscious woman, argued in court during an appeal hearing that his client was seeking
    “outercourse” with his victim. The attorney’s appeal of the high-profile case, which led to
    international outrage after Turner received a lenient sentence in 2016, advanced in a California
    court this week, with an unusual legal claim that experts said was shocking and hurtful to
    survivors of sexual violence. Turner was originally convicted of assault with intent to commit
    rape of an intoxicated woman and penetration of an unconscious person after passerby spotted
    him thrusting on top of a motionless woman outside of a fraternity house in 2015. But his lawyer
    Eric Multhaup argued in court Tuesday that his client was not attempting rape, but was seeking
    “outercourse,” which he said was sexual contact while clothed and a “version of safe sex.” The
    language and claims at the hearing, which came a month after voters recalled the judge who

    View full-size slide

  43. 14 | P a g e
    gave Turner six months in jail, stunned legal scholars and activists. (…) Numerous legal experts
    said they had never before heard the term “outercourse” used by defense attorneys in sexual
    assault cases, though some noted it was common for lawyers to argue that the accused had
    different intentions than charges suggested. (…) Anne Coughlin, a University of Virginia law
    professor (…) said that “outercourse,” as Multhaup appeared to be defining it, would still be a
    criminal act, adding that it was an “ugly play on words” that “seems to be an effort to undercut
    the terrible harm Turner caused to this woman.” Brock Turner sought ‘outercourse’ with victim,
    says lawyer for ex-Stanford student. The Guardian.: https://www.theguardian.com/us-
    news/2018/jul/25/brock-turner-stanford-swimmer-sexual-assault-outercourse
    [viii] The People of the State of California, Plaintiff, versus Brock Allen Turner, Defendant,
    Information No. B1577162. (…) We, the jury, find the defendant, Brock Allen Turner, guilty of a
    felony, a violation of California Penal Code section 220 (a)(1), assault with intent to commit a
    rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person. Dated March 30th 2016 by foreperson, Juror No.
    5. (…) My DA requests that Brock be remanded. But the handcuffs never touch him, his attorney
    arguing he should remain out on bail. Chapter 8. Chanel Miller: Know My Name.
    [ix] You said, During the trial I didn’t want to victimize her at all. That was just my attorney
    and his way of approaching the case.
    Your attorney is not your scapegoat, he represents you. Did your attorney say some
    incredulously infuriating, degrading things? Absolutely. He said you had an erection, because it
    was cold. I have no words.
    You said, you are in the process of establishing a program for high school and college
    students in which you speak about your experience to “speak out against the college campus
    drinking culture and the sexual promiscuity that goes along with that.”
    Speak out against campus drinking culture. That’s what we’re speaking out against? (…) Not
    awareness about campus sexual assault, or rape, or learning to recognize consent? (…)
    Drinking culture and the sexual promiscuity that goes along with that. Goes along with that, like
    a side effect, like fries on the side of your order. (…)
    You should never have done this to me. Secondly, you should have never made me fight so long
    to tell you, you should have never done this to me. But here we are. The damage is done, no one
    can undo it. (…) When I read the probation officer’s report, I was in disbelief, consumed by
    anger which eventually quieted down to profound sadness. My statements have been slimmed
    down to distortion and taken out of context. I fought hard during this trial and will not have the
    outcome minimized by a probation officer who attempted to evaluate my current state and my
    wishes in a fifteen-minute conversation, the majority of which was spent answering questions I
    had about the legal system. The context is also important. (…)

    View full-size slide

  44. 15 | P a g e
    I told the probation officer I do not want Brock to rot away in prison. I did not say he does not
    deserve to be behind bars. The probation officer’s recommendation of a year or less in county
    jail is a soft time-out, a mockery of the seriousness of his assaults, and of the consequence of the
    pain I have been forced to endure. I also told the probation officer that what I truly wanted was
    for Brock to get it, to understand and admit to his wrongdoing.
    Unfortunately, after reading the defendant’s statement, I am severely disappointed and feel that
    he has failed to exhibit sincere remorse or responsibility for his conduct. I fully respected his
    right to a trial, but even after twelve jurors unanimously convicted him of three felonies, all he
    has admitted to doing is ingesting alcohol. Someone who cannot take full accountability for his
    actions does not deserve a mitigating sentence. It is deeply offensive that he would try and dilute
    rape with a suggestion of promiscuity. By definition rape is the absence of promiscuity, rape is
    the absence of consent, and it perturbs me deeply that he can’t even see that distinction.
    The probation officer factored in that the defendant is youthful and has no prior convictions. In
    my opinion, he is old enough to know what he did was wrong. (…) The seriousness of rape has to
    be communicated clearly, we should not create a culture that suggests we learn that rape is
    wrong through trial and error. The consequences of sexual assault need to be severe enough that
    people feel enough fear to exercise good judgment even if they are drunk, severe enough to be
    preventative. The fact that Brock Turner was a star athlete at a prestigious university should not
    be seen as an entitlement to lenience, but as an opportunity to send a strong cultural message
    that sexual assault is against the law regardless of social class.
    The probation officer weighed the fact that he has surrendered a hard-earned swimming
    scholarship. If I had been sexually assaulted by an un-athletic guy from a community college,
    what would his sentence be? If a first-time offender from an underprivileged background was
    accused of three felonies and displayed no accountability for his actions other than drinking,
    what would his sentence be? How fast he swims does not lessen the impact of what happened to
    me.
    The probation officer has stated that this case, when compared to other crimes of similar nature,
    may be considered less serious due to the defendant’s level of intoxication. It felt serious. That’s
    all I’m going to say. He is a lifetime sex registrant. That doesn’t expire. Just like what he did to
    me doesn’t expire, doesn’t just go away after a set number of years. It stays with me, it’s part of
    my identity, it has forever changed the way I carry myself, the way I live the rest of my
    life. Excerpt of Chanel Miller June 02nd 2016 Victim Impact Statement.
    [x] They tell you that if you’re assaulted, there’s a kingdom, a courthouse, high up on a
    mountain where justice can be found. Most victims are turned away at the base of the mountain,
    told they don’t have enough evidence to make the journey. Some victims sacrifice everything to
    make the climb, but are slain along the way, the burden of proof impossibly high. I set off,
    accompanied by a strong team, who helped carry the weight, until I made it, the summit, the
    place few victims reached, the promised land. We’d gotten an arrest, a guilty verdict, the small

    View full-size slide

  45. 16 | P a g e
    percentage that gets the conviction. It was time to see what justice looked like. We threw open
    the doors, and there was nothing. It took the breath out of me. Even worse was looking back
    down to the bottom of the mountain, where I imagined expectant victims looking up, waving,
    cheering, expectantly. What do you see? What does it feel like? What happens when you arrive?
    What could I tell them? A system does not exist for you. The pain of this process couldn’t be
    worth it. These crimes are not crimes but inconveniences. You can fight and fight for what?
    When you are assaulted, run and never look back. This was not one bad sentence. This was the
    best we could hope for.
    At the very start of the sentencing, the judge said that the question he had to ask himself was, Is
    incarceration in state prison the right answer for the poisoning of Chanel’s life? I thought it had
    been strange the way he’d phrased it. To him, my lost job, my damaged hometown, my small
    savings account, my stolen pleasures, had all amounted to ninety days in county jail.
    I wondered if, in their eyes, the victim remained stagnant, living forever in that twenty-minute
    time frame. She remained frozen, while Brock grew more and more multifaceted, his stories
    unfolding, a spectrum of life and memories opening up around him. He got to be a person.
    Where was her redemption story? Nobody talked about the things she might go on to do. I had
    laid my suffering bare, but I lacked a key element. The judge had given Brock something that
    would never be extended to me: empathy. My pain was never more valuable than his potential.
    There would be no transformation. Behind bars or not, the judge had set him free, let him return
    to the recesses of his mind where he could do no wrong. So what was the meaning of all this?
    What’s the objective, the end game? Not once was he forced to imagine the life of the human on
    the receiving end of his actions. If anything, the fight had cemented Brock inside his distortions,
    fortified his need to hold his ground.
    I wondered if I was waking up to a truth that I had been the last one to realize; you are worth
    three months. A smarter part of me knew this was not right, but I could not pretend to know
    better. At that moment there was nothing to do but give in. I accepted that this would be one of
    the most painful nights of my life. (…)
    I opened up by notebook. I stared at the empty page. Then I wrote, You are worth more than
    three months. Again. You are worth more than three months. My face crumpled, twisted my hand
    trying to outrun my mind. Listen to what your body is trying to tell you. You are worth more than
    three months. What are you going to do? I will draw, I will speak. You are worth more than three
    months. I am not a burden. I am not limited, I am ever expanding. Your suffering means
    something. You are worth more than three months. They could never truly have rejected me since
    they had never fully known me. You are worth more than three months. The assault was never all
    of me. I could feel myself fighting, driving the pen into the page. You are worth more than three
    months. My hand tensed, struggling, then softening. The light in my room was gray, I parted my
    blinds to peek through, outlines of trees and cars emerging. I put down my pen. Sleep. Chapter 9.
    Chanel Miller. Know My Name.

    View full-size slide

  46. 17 | P a g e
    [xi] Brock Turner three felonies added up to a maximum of fourteen years in prison. My DA
    recommended six years. She asked me to write a victim impact statement, two to three pages
    about how this experience affected me. If I wanted to read it aloud they’d buy me a ticket home.
    If I didn’t want to read it, my advocate could read it for me. I had to submit it by the end of May
    so the judge had ample time to look it over beforehand. (…)
    Through all my years of writing classes, teachers told us that if a topic felt too raw you put it
    aside for a later time. Create distance. But this deadline had been created for me. I had also
    never encountered an assignment like this, to write up a list of emotional damages. The prompt
    was depressing. Why should I document the ways I might be irreversibly ruined? I had a
    “Making a Victim Impact Statement” brochure that suggested questions: How do you feel when
    you wake up in the morning? How often do you cry? How much of each day do you feel sad?
    Have you thought about suicide?
    One afternoon, I received a call from an unknown number. I let it go to voice mail. In the
    message, a woman identified herself as an officer from the Probation Department. I had learned
    to be wary. I called my DA, asking if I was allowed to talk to this woman. My DA said the officer
    wanted my input about the upcoming sentencing and I should call her and tell her I was writing
    a statement I could share.
    I was surprised the officer called me. I was used to being voiceless, my opinion rarely requested.
    I assumed there were minimum sentences for each felony. I imagined this would be her nice way
    of letting me contribute my two cents and I expected my words to literally be worth pennies,
    wishful coins thrown into a fountain.
    I told the probation officer I was writing a statement. But she began asking me questions. (…) I
    told her I had survived a school shooting carried out by a man who never got the help he needed.
    I didn’t want Brock Turner to slip off the rails and punish more women, needed to be sure he was
    in therapy, taking classes in jail. So you want no more than a year, she said. I was confused. I
    had never said that. She explained that I had said “jail” and county jail has a one-year
    maximum. Prison has no maximum. Oh, I said. Well, do they offer classes in prison? I wondered
    why no one had explained this to me.
    Most importantly I wanted Brock to own up to what he had done. I asked if she had spoken to
    him and she said no, but she would be meeting with him the following week. I said it was hard
    for me to fully answer her without hearing what he had to say. You want him to get it, she said.
    She said she understood. The conversation had been brief. I told her I was working on a
    statement and I’d be more comfortable emailing it to her when I was done. But she said my oral
    statement had been fine, she’d jotted down a few notes, and that wouldn’t be necessary. You did
    great, she said. We both hung up.
    I felt a lingering discomfort. I wished somebody else had been there for the conversation. I told
    myself I was being paranoid, she would take care of things.

    View full-size slide

  47. 18 | P a g e
    Days later I received a call from my DA, her voice fraught. Can you tell me what you said to
    her? (…) She explained the probation officer had offered a lenient sentence, had said I only
    cared about treatment, not incarceration, suggesting Brock didn’t belong in prison. I wondered
    how I had finally been given a voice, but it had not been the one I wanted. Laws exist, I thought.
    How is it possible for me to blow it at this point?
    I told her I’d call the probation officer back, but my DA said it was too late, the report had been
    filed. She would send me the probation officer’s recommendation along with Brock’s statements
    so I could respond to them in my own statement. Distraught, I opened the report.
    The probation officer had given my input a single paragraph. She had taken my words but
    constructed her own sentences, shaving all context away. I just want him to get better, it said.
    She gave me a voice of forgiveness and submission, the agony neatly paved over. She’d reduced
    my suffering to the line, I don’t experience joy from this. She’d drawn her own conclusions: He
    doesn’t need to be behind bars. This woman, who had been absent for the entire battle, had
    arrived to take the victory away. For months I had been climbing out of this hole, my hands
    finally gripping the edge. Now I watched the dirt turn to mud beneath my fingers as I slipped
    down again.
    The officer noted she had been struck by the victim’s ability to objectively digest the gravity and
    ramifications of the defendant’s behavior. That word, digest. She had mistaken my strength for
    digestion. Perhaps she’d expected a hysterical victim, the weeping and scathing kind. She could
    not hear how my muscles had tensed, did not know the way Lucas found me laying mute on the
    couch after the call, exhausted from the resurgence of memories.
    As a woman, I’d tried asserting my opinion without coming off as self-serving or overcontrolling.
    So I repressed pissed-off victim. Now I wondered if I had handled it too gracefully, my
    composure a signal that what he’d done was of little consequence. When I’d advocated for him
    to take classes and be in therapy, she mistook it as a nurturing passivity, gentle absolution. What
    I meant was take note of his mental health, because in my experience, when men were upset,
    lonely, or neglected, women were killed.
    A moderate county jail sentence, formal probation, and sexual offender treatment is respectfully
    recommended. It sunk me. Moderate suggested his crime was of low quality, low intensity,
    tolerable. It was diminishing: This case, when compared to other crimes of similar nature, may
    be considered less serious due to the defendant’s level of intoxication.
    She had interviewed Brock, reported, the defendant expressed sincere remorse and empathy for
    the victim. I wondered if her suggestion had been light because Brock had finally taken
    responsibility. I opened that PDF: “I swear I never would have done any of this if she wasn’t
    willing… We were just in the heat of the moment. If at any time I thought she was not
    responding, I would have stopped immediately…I never meant to treat her like anything else
    than an exceptional person…During the trial I didn’t want to victimize her at all. That was just
    my attorney and his way of approaching the case…I have to sacrifice everything…things can go
    from fun to ruined in just one evening.” He explained he’d been working on a program where he

    View full-size slide

  48. 19 | P a g e
    speaks out against the college campus drinking culture and the sexual promiscuity that goes
    along with that. (…)
    There was another form filled out by the officer I had spoken to. Under victim’s race, she had
    checked white. Never in my life have I checked only white. You cannot note my whiteness without
    acknowledging I am equal parts Chinese. The single check mark was a testament to how little
    time she’d taken to know me, making the assumption I was white over the phone without
    bothering to ask. Chapter 9. Chanel Miller. Know My Name.
    [xii] A 2001 Gallup poll that asked adults what they were afraid of reveals that more people –
    51% -- fear snakes than any other suggested possibility, including speaking in front of an
    audience (40%) and heights (36%). And while children are reputed to fear the dark, only 5% of
    surveyed adults do. Just 11% of adults fear thunder and lightning. Snakes Top List of
    American’s Fears. Gallup.: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1891/snakes-top-list-americans-
    fears.aspx#:~:text=GALLUP%20NEWS%20SERVICE&text=A%20recent%20Gallup%20poll%
    20that,%25)%20and%20heights%20(36%25).
    [xiii] 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. These questions 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 denounce violence committed against women
    irrespective of their racial backgrounds, their sexual orientations, their religious affiliations,
    their disability status 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 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 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

    View full-size slide

  49. 20 | P a g e
    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)? Approximately 5 (Five) Months After the
    April 05th 1986 Rape and Murder of Jeanne Ann Clery: August 29th 1986 at Westminster
    College (Fulton, Missouri). Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Actions on June 11th 1992 on
    the Case of Jeanne Ann Clery. Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W. Association for the Advancement of
    Civil Liberties (AACL).: https://michaelayeleaacl.wordpress.com/2021/12/10/jeanne-ann-clery-
    case-updated-june-11th-1992-index/
    [xiv] It is regrettable that the consequences for sexually assaulting a woman of color (Chanel
    Miller) ended up equating for Brock Turner the maximum sentence he would have served in the
    State of Maryland had he been arrested and charged for the petty offense of Trespass: 90
    days. About Chanel Miller and the San Francisco Public Library (SFPL). Michael Ayele (a.k.a)
    W May 20th 2016. Habeas Corpus.
    Scribd.: https://www.scribd.com/document/534418446/About-Chanel-Miller-the-San-Francisco-
    Public-Library-SFPL-Michael-Ayele-a-k-a-W-May-20th-2016-Habeas-Corpus#
    [xv] On a Friday night in college, graduation a few weeks away, I was walking to a friend’s
    house when two police cars tore past me. I thought nothing of it. It was common to hear sirens in
    Isla Vista: it was a town on the ocean bluffs inhabited solely by eighteen to twenty-two-year-olds,
    every street lined with shabby wooden houses, bikes abandoned on lawns, overcrowded
    balconies, orchids growing out of recycled Franzia boxes. On sunny days you’d see beautiful
    girls in swimsuits holding large rafts over their heads, like ants beneath a crumb, walking down
    the street to the water. Guys biked with surfboards tucked under one arm, their wetsuits peeled
    halfway off like a banana. Isla Vista was a network of couches to sleep on, a friend a block away
    in any direction. A wild, sunny village we called home.
    But by the time I reached her apartment, the sirens had stacked, blossomed, erupted. When I
    walked in the door, all five of my friends were quiet, listening. We received an email from UCSB
    Emergency:
    Shots fired in IV 2 detained, investigation ongoing,

    View full-size slide

  50. 21 | P a g e
    That was it. A single line that dropped off with a comma. Texts began circulating; maybe it was
    gang related, a robbery, a drug deal gone wrong, a drive-by, no a shootout, a bomb,
    firecrackers, drunk driver. He was Persian, no Asian? It was two guys, one guy, in a car, a black
    one. Someone may have died, one person, possibly three, maybe none and this was all a sick
    prank.
    There was a video going around, someone said it was a guy, the guy, so we huddled around the
    phone, and there he was, sitting in the driver’s seat, face saturated in orange from the setting
    sun. Hi, Elliot Rodger here…I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me but I will punish
    you all for it. I’ll take to the streets of Isla Vista and slay every single person I see there… I will
    take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you… Panic erupted, one of us screamed to turn it off,
    one was convulsively crying on the floor, jerking as if her stomach were being yanked by a
    string. He was still speaking, contaminating our air. I shook my head, refusing to hear it. He is
    coming to Isla Vista to kill girls, we are girls in Isla Vista, but we can’t be who he is talking
    about. You denied me a happy life and in turn I will deny all of you life, it’s only fair. I hate all of
    you. We denied you a happy life? Hate ******* who? I was livid. I grabbed the phone, walked
    out of the room, set it on the bathroom counter, and walked out, firmly closing the bathroom
    door behind me. I felt I had trapped him in there, the video still playing, him speaking into the
    darkness to no one.
    The next email told us to remain indoors. We bolted the locks, closed the blinds, got away from
    the window. Our phones kept chiming. Claire’s housemate had been shot. Nothing pieced
    together.
    At three in the morning, we stared at the news on TV, heard mass murder. The word seven was
    displayed in tall, white letters at the bottom of the screen. It seemed wrong to group the dead. It
    was not seven; it was one and one and one and one and one and one and one. Each an entire
    life, each with a name.
    The morning light never came, the air unmoving and still. On days like these, the fog slipped in
    from the ocean, erasing the water, the shore, engulfing our little houses. We blinked, exhausted,
    wondering if it was safe to leave. We kneeled on the couches and carefully parted the blinds. (…)
    Rumors circulated there’d be copycat crimes, some men glorifying Elliot Rodger’s actions,
    hailing him as their leader, the supreme gentleman. (…) When we finally stepped outside, it was
    eerily quiet. On the street people traveled in tight groups, divided into herds and packs. The
    atmosphere was hushed, no one strolling, longboarding, no thumping music leaking from houses.
    The press conference was scheduled for 4:00 P.M. Before it began, we separated to privately
    unravel in our showers, to put on clean clothes. We regrouped inside the apartment, our safe
    house, refusing to be alone.
    Elliot Rodger had lived in a brown apartment building, a block away from Sweet Alley, where
    I’d frequently buy bags of sour watermelon candies for long nights at the library. On Friday
    evening, he killed three people in the apartment, two Chinese roommates and their visiting
    friend; 142 stab wounds in total, bloodstains in the hallway, bodies dragged and covered in
    towels. He carried his knives and handguns into his black BMW, drove to the Alpha Phi sorority

    View full-size slide

  51. 22 | P a g e
    house, knocking hard on the door. When no one answered, he shot three women outside, two
    bled to death in the grass. He sped off, fired through the glass window of Isla Vista Deli, one
    male slid to the floor dead inside. He crashed his car on Del Playa, the main street, the nose of
    his car crunching in, before pressing his gun to his temple. Police found him with his head blown
    out, blood painting the curb. The ambulances were backlogged, students kneeled beside bleeding
    students. Bullet casings littered the street alongside sprinkled glass, large shards of window. The
    police found 548 rounds of unspent ammunition inside his car that he never had time to use. Six
    classmates had been stolen from us, Elliot Rodger the seventh. I do not include the victims’
    names here, for names are sacred, and I do not want them identified solely by what he did to
    them. (…)
    I never forgot one of the opening lines of Elliot Rodger’s 137-page manifesto: This is a story of
    how, I, Elliot Rodger, came to be…This tragedy did not have to happen… but humanity forced
    my hand. His cruelty had a narrative arc. He spoke like he had never wanted to do what he did,
    he was pushed to. And it was women who had made him suffer, who left him no choice but to
    execute his Day of Retribution. In his video, he’d said, I’ve been forced to endure an existence of
    loneliness, rejection and unfulfilled desires all because girls have never been attracted to me.
    His hostility was born of entitlement, self-pity.
    I will punish all females for the crime of depriving me of sex. In Elliot’s world, the unspoken law
    was that women owed him sex, we existed only to receive him. Those were the rules, that was our
    purpose. Sex was his right and our responsibility. The punishment in his world for breaking his
    laws, for rejecting sex, was death. (…) College is the time when everyone experiences those
    things such as sex and fun and pleasure, Elliot Rodger said. In those years I’ve had to rot in
    loneliness, it’s not fair…You forced me to suffer all my life, now I will make you all
    suffer. Chapter 4. Chanel Miller. Know My Name.
    [xvi] Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday signed legislation that expands the legal definition of rape and
    imposes new mandatory minimum sentences on sexual assault offenders – measures inspired
    amid national outcry over the sexual assault case of former Stanford swimmer Brock Turner.
    The decision comes as heated debate raged this year over the mishandling of sexual assault
    investigations on U.S college campuses by police agencies and courts. But increasing
    punishment for sex offenders posed a challenge for Brown, as the state has been undertaking a
    broader effort to move away from a focus on prison sentences. (…)
    Assembly Bill 2888, authored by Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) and Assemblyman Bill
    Dodd (D-Napa), will prohibit judges from giving convicted offenders probation when they
    sexually assault someone who is unconscious or intoxicated.

    View full-size slide

  52. 23 | P a g e
    Assembly Bill 701 by Assemblywomen Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) and Susan Talamentes
    Eggman (D-Stockton), will expand the legal definition of rape so it includes all forms of
    nonconsensual sexual assault. (…)
    Rape has previously been defined as “an act of sexual intercourse” under certain conditions of
    force, duress or lack of consent. Other types of sexual assault, like penetration by a foreign
    object, were categorized as separate offenses. California expands punishment for rape after
    Brown signs bills inspired by Brock Turner case. Los Angeles
    Times.: https://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-
    california-expands-punishment-for-rape-1475260488-htmlstory.html
    Your FOIA request is approved. Kane County Finance Department has no documents pertinent to your request and is
    considering this request closed.
    Sincerely,
    Amy Ramer Holmes
    Assistant Director of Finance, FOIA Officer

    View full-size slide

  53. U.S. Department of Justice
    Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Washington, D.C. 20535
    November 12, 2020
    MR. MICHAEL A. AYELE
    ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES
    POST OFFICE BOX 20438
    ADDIS ABABA
    ETHIOPIA
    FOIPA Request No.: 1480829-000
    Subject: CLERY, JEANNE ANN
    Dear Mr. Ayele:
    This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request to the
    FBI. Below you will find check boxes and informational paragraphs about your request, as well as specific
    determinations required by these statutes. Please read each one carefully.
    Your request has been received at FBI Headquarters for processing.
    You submitted your request via the FBI’s eFOIPA system.
    We have reviewed your request and determined it is consistent with the FBI
    eFOIPA terms of service. Future correspondence about your FOIPA request will
    be provided in an email link unless the record’s file type is not supported by the
    eFOIPA system.
    We have reviewed your request and determined it is not consistent with the FBI
    eFOIPA terms of service. Future correspondence about your FOIPA request will
    be sent through standard mail.
    The subject of your request is currently being processed and documents will be released
    to you upon completion.
    Release of responsive records will be posted to the FBI’s electronic FOIA Library (The
    Vault), http:/vault.fbi.gov, and you will be contacted when the release is posted.
    Your request for a public interest fee waiver is under consideration and you will be advised
    of the decision if fees are applicable. If your fee waiver is not granted, you will be
    responsible for applicable fees per your designated requester fee category below.
    For the purpose of assessing any fees, we have determined:
    As a commercial use requester, you will be charged applicable search, review,
    and duplication fees in accordance with 5 USC § 552 (a)(4)(A)(ii)(I).
    As an educational institution, noncommercial scientific institution or
    representative of the news media requester, you will be charged applicable
    duplication fees in accordance with 5 USC § 552 (a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
    As a general (all others) requester, you will be charged applicable search and
    duplication fees in accordance with 5 USC § 552 (a)(4)(A)(ii)(III).

    View full-size slide

  54. Please check the status of your FOIPA request at www.fbi.gov/foia by clicking on FOIPA Status
    and entering your FOIPA Request Number. Status updates are adjusted weekly. The status of newly
    assigned requests may not be available until the next weekly update. If the FOIPA has been closed the
    notice will indicate that appropriate correspondence has been mailed to the address on file.
    For questions regarding our determinations, visit the www.fbi.gov/foia website under “Contact Us.”
    The FOIPA Request number listed above has been assigned to your request. Please use this number in all
    correspondence concerning your request.
    If you are not satisfied with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s determination in response to this
    request, you may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United
    States Department of Justice, 441 G Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20530, or you may submit an
    appeal through OIP's FOIA STAR portal by creating an account following the instructions on OIP’s website:
    https://www.justice.gov/oip/submit-and-track-request-or-appeal. Your appeal must be postmarked or
    electronically transmitted within ninety (90) days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit
    your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act
    Appeal." Please cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified.
    You may seek dispute resolution services by contacting the Office of Government Information
    Services (OGIS). 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, e-mail at [email protected]; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile
    at 202-741-5769. Alternatively, you may contact the FBI’s FOIA Public Liaison by emailing
    [email protected]. If you submit your dispute resolution correspondence by email, the subject
    heading should clearly state “Dispute Resolution Services.” Please also cite the FOIPA Request Number
    assigned to your request so it may be easily identified.
    Sincerely,
    Michael G. Seidel
    Section Chief
    Record/Information
    Dissemination Section
    Information Management Division

    View full-size slide

  55. U.S. Department of Justice
    Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Washington, D.C. 20535
    February 25, 2021
    MICHAEL A. AYELE
    ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES
    POST OFFICE BOX 20438
    ADDIS ABABA
    ETHIOPIA
    FOIPA Request No.: 1480829-000
    Subject: CLERY, JEANNE ANN
    Dear Michael Ayele:
    The enclosed documents were reviewed under the Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA), Title 5,
    United States Code, Section 552/552a. Below you will find check boxes under the appropriate statute headings
    which indicate the types of exemptions asserted to protect information which is exempt from disclosure. The
    appropriate exemptions are noted on the enclosed pages next to redacted information. In addition, a deleted page
    information sheet was inserted to indicate where pages were withheld entirely and identify which exemptions were
    applied. The checked exemption boxes used to withhold information are further explained in the enclosed
    Explanation of Exemptions.
    Section 552 Section 552a
    (b)(1) (b)(7)(A) (d)(5)
    (b)(2) (b)(7)(B) (j)(2)
    (b)(3) (b)(7)(C) (k)(1)
    (b)(7)(D) (k)(2)
    (b)(7)(E) (k)(3)
    (b)(7)(F) (k)(4)
    (b)(4) (b)(8) (k)(5)
    (b)(5) (b)(9) (k)(6)
    (b)(6) (k)(7)
    5 page(s) were reviewed and 5 page(s) are being released.
    Please see the paragraphs below for relevant information specific to your request as well as the enclosed
    FBI FOIPA Addendum for standard responses applicable to all requests.
    Document(s) were located which originated with, or contained information concerning, other
    Government Agency [OGA].
    This information has been referred to the OGA(s) for review and direct response to you.
    We are consulting with another agency. The FBI will correspond with you regarding this information
    when the consultation is completed.
    Please refer to the enclosed FBI FOIPA Addendum for additional standard responses applicable to your
    request. “Part 1” of the Addendum includes standard responses that apply to all requests. “Part 2” includes
    additional standard responses that apply to all requests for records about yourself or any third party individuals.
    “Part 3” includes general information about FBI records that you may find useful. Also enclosed is our Explanation
    of Exemptions.

    View full-size slide

  56. For questions regarding our determinations, visit the www.fbi.gov/foia website under “Contact Us.”
    The FOIPA Request Number listed above has been assigned to your request. Please use this number in all
    correspondence concerning your request.
    If you are not satisfied with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s determination in response to this request,
    you may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States
    Department of Justice, 441 G Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20530, or you may submit an appeal through
    OIP's FOIA STAR portal by creating an account following the instructions on OIP’s website:
    https://www.justice.gov/oip/submit-and-track-request-or-appeal. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically
    transmitted within ninety (90) days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit your appeal by mail,
    both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal." Please cite the
    FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified.
    You may seek dispute resolution services by contacting the Office of Government Information Services
    (OGIS). 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, e-mail at
    [email protected]; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769. Alternatively,
    you may contact the FBI’s FOIA Public Liaison by emailing [email protected]. If you submit your dispute
    resolution correspondence by email, the subject heading should clearly state “Dispute Resolution Services.” Please
    also cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified.
    See additional information which follows.
    The enclosed documents represent the final release of information responsive to your Freedom of
    Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request.
    It is unnecessary to adjudicate your request for a public interest fee waiver because there are not
    assessable fees.
    Sincerely,
    Michael G. Seidel
    Section Chief
    Record/Information
    Dissemination Section
    Information Management Division
    Enclosure(s)

    View full-size slide

  57. FBI FOIPA Addendum
    As referenced in our letter responding to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request, the FBI FOIPA Addendum
    provides information applicable to your request. Part 1 of the Addendum includes standard responses that apply to all
    requests. Part 2 includes standard responses that apply to requests for records about individuals to the extent your request
    seeks the listed information. Part 3 includes general information about FBI records, searches, and programs.
    Part 1: The standard responses below apply to all requests:
    (i) 5 U.S.C. § 552(c). Congress excluded three categories of law enforcement and national security records from the
    requirements of the FOIPA [5 U.S.C. § 552(c)]. FBI responses are limited to those records subject to the requirements
    of the FOIPA. Additional information about the FBI and the FOIPA can be found on the www.fbi.gov/foia website.
    (ii) Intelligence Records. To the extent your request seeks records of intelligence sources, methods, or activities, the FBI
    can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1), (b)(3), and as applicable to
    requests for records about individuals, PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(1), (b)(3), and (j)(2)]. The mere
    acknowledgment of the existence or nonexistence of such records is itself a classified fact protected by FOIA exemption
    (b)(1) and/or would reveal intelligence sources, methods, or activities protected by exemption (b)(3) [50 USC §
    3024(i)(1)]. This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that any such records do or do not exist.
    Part 2: The standard responses below apply to all requests for records on individuals:
    (i) Requests for Records about any Individual—Watch Lists. The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of
    any individual’s name on a watch list pursuant to FOIA exemption (b)(7)(E) and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§
    552/552a (b)(7)(E), (j)(2)]. This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that watch list records do or
    do not exist.
    (ii) Requests for Records about any Individual—Witness Security Program Records. The FBI can neither confirm
    nor deny the existence of records which could identify any participant in the Witness Security Program pursuant to FOIA
    exemption (b)(3) and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(3), 18 U.S.C. 3521, and (j)(2)]. This is a standard
    response and should not be read to indicate that such records do or do not exist.
    (iii) Requests for Records for Incarcerated Individuals. The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records
    which could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any incarcerated individual pursuant to
    FOIA exemptions (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), and (j)(2)].
    This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that such records do or do not exist.
    Part 3: General Information:
    (i) Record Searches. The Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS) searches for reasonably described records by
    searching systems or locations where responsive records would reasonably be found. A standard search normally
    consists of a search for main files in the Central Records System (CRS), an extensive system of records consisting of
    applicant, investigative, intelligence, personnel, administrative, and general files compiled by the FBI per its law
    enforcement, intelligence, and administrative functions. The CRS spans the entire FBI organization, comprising records of
    FBI Headquarters, FBI Field Offices, and FBI Legal Attaché Offices (Legats) worldwide; Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR)
    records are included in the CRS. Unless specifically requested, a standard search does not include references,
    administrative records of previous FOIPA requests, or civil litigation files. For additional information about our record
    searches, visit www.fbi.gov/services/information-management/foipa/requesting-fbi-records.
    (ii) FBI Records. Founded in 1908, the FBI carries out a dual law enforcement and national security mission. As part of this
    dual mission, the FBI creates and maintains records on various subjects; however, the FBI does not maintain records on
    every person, subject, or entity.
    (iii) Requests for Criminal History Records or Rap Sheets. The Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division
    provides Identity History Summary Checks – often referred to as a criminal history record or rap sheet. These criminal
    history records are not the same as material in an investigative “FBI file.” An Identity History Summary Check is a
    listing of information taken from fingerprint cards and documents submitted to the FBI in connection with arrests, federal
    employment, naturalization, or military service. For a fee, individuals can request a copy of their Identity History
    Summary Check. Forms and directions can be accessed at www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/identity-history-summary-checks.
    Additionally, requests can be submitted electronically at www.edo.cjis.gov. For additional information, please contact
    CJIS directly at (304) 625-5590.
    (iv) National Name Check Program (NNCP). The mission of NNCP is to analyze and report information in response to name
    check requests received from federal agencies, for the purpose of protecting the United States from foreign and domestic
    threats to national security. Please be advised that this is a service provided to other federal agencies. Private Citizens
    cannot request a name check.

    View full-size slide

  58. EXPLANATION OF EXEMPTIONS
    SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552
    (b)(1) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign
    policy and (B) are in fact properly classified to such Executive order;
    (b)(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
    (b)(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters
    be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers
    to particular types of matters to be withheld;
    (b)(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
    (b)(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with
    the agency;
    (b)(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
    (b)(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or
    information ( A ) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ( B ) would deprive a person of a right to a fair
    trial or an impartial adjudication, ( C ) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, ( D ) could
    reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private
    institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of record or information compiled by a criminal law
    enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence
    investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, ( E ) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement
    investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could
    reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or ( F ) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any
    individual;
    (b)(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for
    the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or
    (b)(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
    SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552a
    (d)(5) information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action proceeding;
    (j)(2) material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law including efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime
    or apprehend criminals;
    (k)(1) information which is currently and properly classified pursuant to an Executive order in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy,
    for example, information involving intelligence sources or methods;
    (k)(2) investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than criminal, which did not result in loss of a right, benefit or privilege
    under Federal programs, or which would identify a source who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be
    held in confidence;
    (k)(3) material maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or any other individual pursuant to
    the authority of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3056;
    (k)(4) required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records;
    (k)(5) investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian
    employment or for access to classified information, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished
    information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence;
    (k)(6) testing or examination material used to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in Federal Government service the
    release of which would compromise the testing or examination process;
    (k)(7) material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who
    furnished the material pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence.
    FBI/DOJ

    View full-size slide

  59. U.S. Department of Justice
    Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Washington, D.C. 20535
    March 7, 2022
    MR. MICHAEL A. AYELE
    ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES
    POST OFFICE BOX 20438
    ADDIS ABABA 10013
    ETHIOPIA
    FOIPA Request No.: 1511415-000
    Subject: Westminster College (Communications and
    Opinions)
    Dear Mr. Ayele:
    The enclosed documents were reviewed under the Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA), Title 5,
    United States Code, Section 552/552a. Below you will find check boxes under the appropriate statute headings
    which indicate the types of exemptions asserted to protect information which is exempt from disclosure. The
    appropriate exemptions are noted on the enclosed pages next to redacted information. In addition, a deleted page
    information sheet was inserted to indicate where pages were withheld entirely and identify which exemptions were
    applied. The checked exemption boxes used to withhold information are further explained in the enclosed
    Explanation of Exemptions.
    Section 552 Section 552a
    (b)(1) (b)(7)(A) (d)(5)
    (b)(2) (b)(7)(B) (j)(2)
    (b)(3) (b)(7)(C) (k)(1)
    (b)(7)(D) (k)(2)
    (b)(7)(E) (k)(3)
    (b)(7)(F) (k)(4)
    (b)(4) (b)(8) (k)(5)
    (b)(5) (b)(9) (k)(6)
    (b)(6) (k)(7)
    2 pages were reviewed and 2 pages are being released.
    Please see the paragraphs below for relevant information specific to your request as well as the enclosed
    FBI FOIPA Addendum for standard responses applicable to all requests.
    Document(s) were located which originated with, or contained information concerning, other
    Government Agency (ies) [OGA].
    This information has been referred to the OGA(s) for review and direct response to you.
    We are consulting with another agency. The FBI will correspond with you regarding this information
    when the consultation is completed.

    View full-size slide

  60. Please refer to the enclosed FBI FOIPA Addendum for additional standard responses applicable to your
    request. “Part 1” of the Addendum includes standard responses that apply to all requests. “Part 2” includes
    additional standard responses that apply to all requests for records about yourself or any third party individuals.
    “Part 3” includes general information about FBI records that you may find useful. Also enclosed is our Explanation
    of Exemptions.
    For questions regarding our determinations, visit the www.fbi.gov/foia website under “Contact Us.”
    The FOIPA Request Number listed above has been assigned to your request. Please use this number in all
    correspondence concerning your request.
    If you are not satisfied with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s determination in response to this request,
    you may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States
    Department of Justice, 441 G Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20530, or you may submit an appeal through
    OIP's FOIA STAR portal by creating an account following the instructions on OIP’s website:
    https://www.justice.gov/oip/submit-and-track-request-or-appeal. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically
    transmitted within ninety (90) days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit your appeal by mail,
    both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal." Please cite the
    FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified.
    You may seek dispute resolution services by contacting the Office of Government Information Services
    (OGIS). 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, e-mail at
    [email protected]; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769. Alternatively,
    you may contact the FBI’s FOIA Public Liaison by emailing [email protected]. If you submit your dispute
    resolution correspondence by email, the subject heading should clearly state “Dispute Resolution Services.” Please
    also cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified.
    See additional information which follows.
    Sincerely,
    Michael G. Seidel
    Section Chief
    Record/Information
    Dissemination Section
    Information Management Division
    Enclosure(s)
    This is the final release of information responsive to your FOIPA request. This material is being provided to
    you at no charge.
    It is unnecessary to adjudicate your request for a fee waiver at this time, as no applicable fees were
    assessed.
    Records that may have been responsive to your request were destroyed. Since this material could not be
    reviewed, it is not known if it was responsive to your request. Record retention and disposal is carried out under
    supervision of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Title 44, United States Code, Section 3301
    as implemented by Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1228; Title 44, United States Code, Section 3310 as
    implemented by Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1229.10.
    Additionally, records that may be responsive to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request
    has been transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). If you wish to review these
    records, submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to NARA, Special Access and FOIA, 8601 Adelphi
    Road, Room 5500, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Please reference the file numbers 100-KC-13743 and 100-KC-
    14235.

    View full-size slide

  61. FBI FOIPA Addendum
    As referenced in our letter responding to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request, the FBI FOIPA Addendum
    provides information applicable to your request. Part 1 of the Addendum includes standard responses that apply to all
    requests. Part 2 includes standard responses that apply to requests for records about individuals to the extent your request
    seeks the listed information. Part 3 includes general information about FBI records, searches, and programs.
    Part 1: The standard responses below apply to all requests:
    (i) 5 U.S.C. § 552(c). Congress excluded three categories of law enforcement and national security records from the
    requirements of the FOIPA [5 U.S.C. § 552(c)]. FBI responses are limited to those records subject to the requirements
    of the FOIPA. Additional information about the FBI and the FOIPA can be found on the www.fbi.gov/foia website.
    (ii) Intelligence Records. To the extent your request seeks records of intelligence sources, methods, or activities, the FBI
    can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1), (b)(3), and as applicable to
    requests for records about individuals, PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(1), (b)(3), and (j)(2)]. The mere
    acknowledgment of the existence or nonexistence of such records is itself a classified fact protected by FOIA exemption
    (b)(1) and/or would reveal intelligence sources, methods, or activities protected by exemption (b)(3) [50 USC §
    3024(i)(1)]. This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that any such records do or do not exist.
    Part 2: The standard responses below apply to all requests for records on individuals:
    (i) Requests for Records about any Individual—Watch Lists. The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of
    any individual’s name on a watch list pursuant to FOIA exemption (b)(7)(E) and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§
    552/552a (b)(7)(E), (j)(2)]. This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that watch list records do or
    do not exist.
    (ii) Requests for Records about any Individual—Witness Security Program Records. The FBI can neither confirm
    nor deny the existence of records which could identify any participant in the Witness Security Program pursuant to FOIA
    exemption (b)(3) and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(3), 18 U.S.C. 3521, and (j)(2)]. This is a standard
    response and should not be read to indicate that such records do or do not exist.
    (iii) Requests for Records for Incarcerated Individuals. The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records
    which could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any incarcerated individual pursuant to
    FOIA exemptions (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), and (j)(2)].
    This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that such records do or do not exist.
    Part 3: General Information:
    (i) Record Searches. The Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS) searches for reasonably described records by
    searching systems or locations where responsive records would reasonably be found. A standard search normally
    consists of a search for main files in the Central Records System (CRS), an extensive system of records consisting of
    applicant, investigative, intelligence, personnel, administrative, and general files compiled by the FBI per its law
    enforcement, intelligence, and administrative functions. The CRS spans the entire FBI organization, comprising records of
    FBI Headquarters, FBI Field Offices, and FBI Legal Attaché Offices (Legats) worldwide; Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR)
    records are included in the CRS. Unless specifically requested, a standard search does not include references,
    administrative records of previous FOIPA requests, or civil litigation files. For additional information about our record
    searches, visit www.fbi.gov/services/information-management/foipa/requesting-fbi-records.
    (ii) FBI Records. Founded in 1908, the FBI carries out a dual law enforcement and national security mission. As part of this
    dual mission, the FBI creates and maintains records on various subjects; however, the FBI does not maintain records on
    every person, subject, or entity.
    (iii) Requests for Criminal History Records or Rap Sheets. The Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division
    provides Identity History Summary Checks – often referred to as a criminal history record or rap sheet. These criminal
    history records are not the same as material in an investigative “FBI file.” An Identity History Summary Check is a
    listing of information taken from fingerprint cards and documents submitted to the FBI in connection with arrests, federal
    employment, naturalization, or military service. For a fee, individuals can request a copy of their Identity History
    Summary Check. Forms and directions can be accessed at www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/identity-history-summary-checks.
    Additionally, requests can be submitted electronically at www.edo.cjis.gov. For additional information, please contact
    CJIS directly at (304) 625-5590.
    (iv) National Name Check Program (NNCP). The mission of NNCP is to analyze and report information in response to name
    check requests received from federal agencies, for the purpose of protecting the United States from foreign and domestic
    threats to national security. Please be advised that this is a service provided to other federal agencies. Private Citizens
    cannot request a name check.

    View full-size slide

  62. EXPLANATION OF EXEMPTIONS
    SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552
    (b)(1) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign
    policy and (B) are in fact properly classified to such Executive order;
    (b)(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
    (b)(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters
    be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers
    to particular types of matters to be withheld;
    (b)(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
    (b)(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with
    the agency;
    (b)(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
    (b)(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or
    information ( A ) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ( B ) would deprive a person of a right to a fair
    trial or an impartial adjudication, ( C ) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, ( D ) could
    reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private
    institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of record or information compiled by a criminal law
    enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence
    investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, ( E ) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement
    investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could
    reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or ( F ) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any
    individual;
    (b)(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for
    the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or
    (b)(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
    SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552a
    (d)(5) information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action proceeding;
    (j)(2) material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law including efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime
    or apprehend criminals;
    (k)(1) information which is currently and properly classified pursuant to an Executive order in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy,
    for example, information involving intelligence sources or methods;
    (k)(2) investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than criminal, which did not result in loss of a right, benefit or privilege
    under Federal programs, or which would identify a source who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be
    held in confidence;
    (k)(3) material maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or any other individual pursuant to
    the authority of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3056;
    (k)(4) required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records;
    (k)(5) investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian
    employment or for access to classified information, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished
    information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence;
    (k)(6) testing or examination material used to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in Federal Government service the
    release of which would compromise the testing or examination process;
    (k)(7) material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who
    furnished the material pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence.
    FBI/DOJ

    View full-size slide