EXHIB
BIT 2.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL October 29, 2020 Michael A. Ayele P.O. BOX 12596 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] RE: FOIA Request No. 21-00102-F Dear W: This is in response to your October 13, 2020, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the United States Department of Education (ED) Office of Inspector General (OIG) for: 1) Details of formal and informal ties existing between the ED and Lehigh University; 2) All communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence exchanged between employees and legal representatives of ED with Lehigh University about Jeanne Clery’s time as a student at Lehigh University since April 7, 1986; 3) All communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence between ED and the legislative branch of government in the State of Pennsylvania about Jeanne Clery since April 7, 1986; 4) All concerns and complaints that were filed with ED pertaining to Donald Trump having been invited to speak at the graduation ceremony of Lehigh University Class of 1988 two years after the brutal rape and murder of Jeanne Clery; 5) All concerns and complaints that were filed with ED about Donald Trump having been invited to speak at the graduation ceremony of Lehigh University Class of 1988 fifteen years after the DOJ charged his real estate company of maliciously excluding blacks and African Americans as customers; 6) All concerns and complaints that were filed by people of the United States of America with ED about Donald Trump having advocated for the reinstatement of the death penalty in the state of New York following the much-publicized incident at Central Park in the Spring of 1989; 7) All communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence exchanged between ED and students, faculty, staff, Board of Trustees members at Lehigh University about Donald Trump having endorsed the reinstatement of the death penalty in the State of New York following the much publicized incident at Central Park in the Spring of 1989; 8) All communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence exchanged between ED and students, faculty, staff and Board of Trustees members of Lehigh University about Donald Trump’s failure to be respectful of affirmative and effective consent in his sexual relationships with females; 9) All communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence exchanged between employees and legal representatives of ED and students, faculty, staff and 400 MARYLAND AVENUE, S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-1510 Promoting the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department’s programs and operations.
Page 2 – FOIA Request No. 21-00102-F Board of Trustee members at Lehigh University about the Kelly McCoy petition on Change.org calling for Donald Trump’s honorary degree to be rescinded; and 10) All communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence between employees and legal representatives of ED and students, faculty, staff and Board of Trustee members at Lehigh University about the motion put forward by faculty members of Lehigh University calling upon the honorary degree awarded to Donald Trump to be rescinded. In regard to part one of your request, the records requested are not reasonably described as required by 34 C.F.R. § 5.20(b) and 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). Therefore, the OIG is unable to process this aspect of your request. In regard to parts two, three, nine, and ten of your request, the OIG conducted a searched and found no records responsive to your request. In regard to the remaining parts of your request, OIG has carefully considered your request and has decided not to confirm nor deny the existence of the records you requested. Disclosure of the existence of such records could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) and of third-parties protected under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). If such records existed, they would be exempt from mandatory disclosure for the same reasons. For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c) (2006 & Supp. IV 2010). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist. If you are not satisfied with my action on this request, you may file an administrative appeal by writing within 90 calendar days of the date of this letter to: Inspector General U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W. ATTN: FOIA Appeals Washington, DC 20202-1500 You may also submit your appeal by email to [email protected]. As we have limited mail access during this time, email is preferred. A copy of your initial request, a copy of this letter and your statement of circumstances, reasons, and arguments should accompany your appeal letter. You also have the right to seek assistance and/or dispute resolution services from our OIG FOIA Public Liaison or from the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). The OIG FOIA Public Liaison is responsible, among other duties, for assisting in the resolution of FOIA disputes. OGIS, which is outside the Department of Education, offers mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to appeals or litigation.
Page 3 – FOIA Request No. 21-00102-F You may contact the OIG FOIA Public Liaison or OGIS as follows: Mail Carla McKenzie Office of Government Information OIG FOIA Public Liaison Services E-mail Office of the Inspector General National Archives and Records Phone U.S. Department of Education Administration Fax 400 Maryland Ave., SW 8601 Adelphi Road Washington, DC 20202-1500 Room 2510 College Park, MD 20740-6001 [email protected] [email protected] 215-656-6027 301-837-1996; toll free at 1-877-684-6448 202-245-7039 301-837-0348 Seeking assistance from the OIG FOIA Public Liaison or OGIS does not affect your right, or the deadline, to pursue an appeal. Sincerely, Antigone Potamianos Counsel to the Inspector General cc: FOIA Service Center
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY FOIA Service Center February 16, 2021 Mr. Michael Ayele P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa, N/A Ethiopia RE: FOIA Request No. 21-00103-F Dear Michael Ayele: This letter is a final response to your request for information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, dated October 14, 2020 and received in this office on October 14, 2020. Your request was forwarded to the appropriate office to search for documents that may be responsive to your request. You requested the following: The basis for this request for records are the requirements of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are (1) details of formal and informal ties existing between the DOE and Lehigh University; (2) all communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence exchanged between employees and legal representatives of the DOE with Lehigh University about Jeanne Clery’s time as a student of Lehigh University since April 07th 1986; (3) all communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence between the Department of Education (DOE) and the legislative branch of government in the State of Pennsylvania about Jeanne Clery since April 07th 1986; (4) receipt of all concerns and complaints that were filed with the DOE pertaining to Donald Trump having been invited to speak at the graduation ceremony of Lehigh University Class of 1988 two years after the brutal rape and murder of Jeanne Clery (5) receipt of all concerns and complaints that were filed with the DOE about Donald Trump having been invited to speak at the graduation ceremony of Lehigh University Class of 1988 fifteen years after the DOJ charged his real estate company of maliciously excluding blacks and African Americans as customers; (6) receipt of all concerns and complaints that were filed by people of the United States of America with the Department of Education (DOE) about Donald Trump having advocated for the reinstatement of the death penalty in the state of New York following the much-publicized incident at Central Park in the Spring of 1989; (7) all communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence exchanged between the DOE and students, faculty, staff, Board of Trustees members at Lehigh University about Donald Trump having endorsed the reinstatement of the death penalty in the State of New York following the much publicized incident at Central Park in the Spring of 1989; (8) all communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence exchanged between the DOE and students, faculty, staff and Board of Trustees members of Lehigh University about Donald Trump failure to be respectful of affirmative and effective consent in his sexual relationships with females; (9) all communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence exchanged between employees and legal representatives of the DOE and students, faculty, staff and Board of Trustee members at Lehigh University about Kelly McCoy petition on Change.org calling for Donald Trump honorary degree to be rescinded and (10) all communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence between employees and legal representatives of the DOE and students, faculty, staff and Board of Trustee members at Lehigh
Page 2 – Michael Ayele FOIA Request No. 21-00103-F University about the motion put forward by faculty members of Lehigh University calling upon the honorary degree awarded to Donald Trump to be rescinded. Available for Public Access Link (PAL) download are 1,456 pages of documents responsive to your request. The documents provided are: Lehigh University You can access your PAL account or register for a PAL account at this link: https://foiaxpress.pal.ed.gov/app/PalLogin.aspx However, certain information has been withheld in its entirety according to FOIA exemptions (b)(7)(A) and (b)(7)(C), specified below: Records or portions of records relating to law enforcement pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552 (b)(7)(A) of the FOIA. This exemption protects records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such records or information could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. Records or portions of records relating to personal information that was compiled for a law enforcement purpose is exempt pursuant 5 U.S.C. §552 (b)(7)(C) of the FOIA. Disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The above mentioned documents are responsive to item number 2 of your request. The Department was unable to locate any documents in reference to item 1 and 3 thru 10. Provisions of the FOIA allow us to recover the costs pertaining to your request. The Department has concluded that you fall within the category of “an all other use requester.” However, the Department has provided you with this information at no charge. The Department's release of this information at no cost does not constitute the grant of a fee waiver and does not infer or imply that you will be granted a fee waiver for future requests made under FOIA to the Department. You have the right to seek assistance and/or dispute resolution services from the Department’s FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). The FOIA Public Liaison is responsible, among other duties, for assisting in the resolution of FOIA disputes. OGIS, which is outside the Department of Education, offers mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to appeals or litigation. They can be contacted by: Mail FOIA Public Liaison Office of Government Information Services Office of the Executive Secretariat National Archives and Records Administration U.S. Department of Education 8601 Adelphi Road 400 Maryland Ave., SW, LBJ 7C132 Room 2510 Washington, DC 20202-4500 College Park, MD 20740-6001 E-mail [email protected] [email protected] Phone 202-205-0733 301-837-1996; toll free at 1-877-684-6448 Fax 202-401-0920 301-837-0348
Page 3 – Michael Ayele FOIA Request No. 21-00103-F You have the right to appeal this decision by writing to the address below, 90 calendar days from the date of this letter. Using the services described above does not affect your right or the deadline to file an appeal. Your appeal must be in writing and must include detailed statement of all legal and factual bases for the appeal; it should be accompanied by this letter, a copy of your initial letter of request, and any documentation that serves as evidence or supports the argument you wish the Department to consider in making an administrative determination on your appeal. Appeals may be submitted using the on-line form available at www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/foia/foia-appeal-form.pdf. E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 202-401-0920 Mail: Appeals Office Office of the Executive Secretariat U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, LBJ 7W106A Washington, DC 20202-4536 Sincerely, Elise Cook Government Information Specialist Office of the Executive Secretariat Enclosure
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REGION IX CALIFORNIA OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 50 UNITED NATIONS PLAZA MAIL BOX 1200; ROOM 1545 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 February 16, 2021 SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Michael Ayele [email protected] (In reply, please refer to # 09-21-2124.) Dear Mr. Ayele: This is to acknowledge that the U.S. Department of Education, San Francisco Office for Civil Rights (OCR), received your complaint on February 16, 2021. We are evaluating your complaint to determine whether OCR will accept your allegation(s) for investigation. Our target date for completion of this process is 30 days from the date of this letter. We will send you a letter notifying you of our determination. We require a signed Privacy Act Consent Form (consent form) when identification of the complainant is necessary to resolve the complaint. If OCR does not receive the signed consent form within 20 calendar days of the date of this letter, your complaint will be administratively closed. If you are filing on behalf of another person, you are responsible for securing written consent from that individual. If you are filing on behalf of a minor (under the age of 18) or a legally incompetent adult, the consent form must be signed by that person's parent or legal guardian. If you require an additional copy of the Consent Form, you can obtain it at http://ed.gov/ocr/edlite-consentform.html. Due to the Coronavirus outbreak, the majority of OCR staff are working remotely. Therefore, to facilitate the processing of your complaint, please submit your signed consent form and any additional correspondence via email to [email protected]. A scanned PDF file or photo/jpeg file of the consent form are both acceptable. You may also submit a completed consent form and additional correspondence via fax to 415-486-5570 (ATTN: OCR SF, and include the case number at the top of this letter). If the above options are not available to you, completed consent forms and additional correspondence may be mailed to the 50 United Nations Plaza address indicated at the top of this letter. If you must return documents to OCR by postal mail, please notify us of this by contacting [email protected] or calling (415) 486-5555 as soon as possible. In your e-mail message or voice message, please include your case number, the name of the recipient, and the date that you have mailed your completed consent form or other documents to OCR San Francisco. A copy of OCR’s Case Processing Manual is available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.pdf. If you have any questions concerning this correspondence, please call our office at (415) 486-5555 and refer your case number listed above. Sincerely, James M. Wood Team Leader Enclosure The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. www.ed.gov
United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights 50 United Nations Plaza, Mail Box 1200, Suite 1545 San Francisco, CA 94102 CONSENT FORM - FOR REVEALING NAME AND PERSONAL INFORMATION TO OTHERS (Please print or type except for signature line) Complainant’s Name: MICHAEL A. AYELE (aka) W Institution Against Which Complaint Filed: CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY This form asks whether the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) may share your name and other personal information when OCR decides that doing so will assist in investigating and resolving your complaint. For example, to decide whether a school discriminated against a person, OCR often needs to reveal that person’s name and other personal information to employees at that school to verify facts or get additional information. When OCR does that, OCR informs the employees that all forms of retaliation against that person and other individuals associated with the person are prohibited. OCR may also reveal the person’s name and personal information during interviews with witnesses and consultations with experts. If OCR is not allowed to reveal your name or personal information as described above, OCR may decide to close your complaint if OCR determines it is necessary to disclose your name or personal information in order to resolve whether the school discriminated against you. NOTE: If you file a complaint with OCR, OCR can release certain information about your complaint to the press or general public, including the name of the school or institution; the date your complaint was filed; the type of discrimination included in your complaint; the date your complaint was resolved, dismissed or closed; the basic reasons for OCR’s decision; or other related information. Any information OCR releases to the press or general public will not include your name or the name of the person on whose behalf you filed the complaint. NOTE: OCR requires you to respond to its requests for information. Failure to cooperate with OCR’s investigation and resolution activities could result in the closure of your complaint. Please sign section A or section B (but not both) and return to OCR: If you filed the complaint on behalf of yourself, you should sign this form. If you filed the complaint on behalf of another specific person, that other person should sign this form. EXCEPTION: If the complaint was filed on behalf of a specific person who is younger than 18 years old or a legally incompetent adult, this form must be signed by the parent or legal guardian of that person. If you filed the complaint on behalf of a class of people, rather than any specific person, you should sign the form. A. I give OCR my consent to reveal my identity (and that of my minor child/ward on whose behalf the complaint is filed) to others to further OCR’s investigation and enforcement activities. February 18th 2021 Signature Date OR B. I do not give OCR my consent to reveal my identity (and that of my minor child/ward on whose behalf the complaint is filed) to others. I understand that OCR may have to close my complaint. Signature Date I declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct that I am the person named above; and, if the complaint is filed on behalf of a minor child/ward, that I am that person’s parent or legal guardian. This declaration only applies to the identity of the persons and does not extend to any of the claims filed in the complaint. Updated August 2016
EXHIB
BIT 3.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY FOIA Service Center March 14, 2023 Michael Ayele P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa, N/A Ethiopia FOIA Request No.23-01164-F Dear Michael Ayele: This is a final response to your request dated March 3, 2023, requesting information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Your request was received in the FOIA Service Center on March 9, 2023, and was forwarded to the Dept. of Education within the Department of Education (the Department) for any responsive documents they may have. You requested: [9] the conversations that took place between MSU and the Department of Education (DoED) about the sexual abuse perpetrated by Lawrence Gerard Nassar; [10] our discussions about Lawrence Gerard Nassar as a sexual predator, who had child pornography at his place of residence on September 20th 2016. The Department is only answering Items 9 and 10 of your request. The other items of your request do not address Department equities. The Department has carefully considered your request and has decided not to confirm or deny the existence of the records you requested. Without an individual’s consent, proof of death, official acknowledgment of an investigation, or an overriding public interest, confirming or denying the existence of records concerning an individual could reasonably be expected to constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). You have the right to seek assistance and/or dispute resolution services from the Department’s FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). The FOIA Public Liaison is responsible, among other duties, for assisting in the resolution of FOIA disputes. OGIS, which is outside the Department of Education, offers mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to appeals or litigation.
Page 2 - Michael Ayele FOIA Request 23-01164-F They can be contacted by: Mail FOIA Public Liaison Office of Government Information Services Office of the Secretary National Archives and Records Administration E-mail U.S. Department of Education 8601 Adelphi Road Phone 400 Maryland Ave., SW OGIS LBJ 7W104 College Park, MD 20740-6001 Fax Washington, DC 20202-4500 [email protected] [email protected] 202-741-5770 or 1-877-684-6448 N/A 202-205-0733 202-401-0920 You have the right to appeal this decision by writing to the address below, 90 calendar days from the date of this letter. Using the services described above does not affect your right or the deadline to file an appeal. Your appeal must be in writing and must include detailed statement of all legal and factual bases for the appeal; it should be accompanied by this letter, a copy of your initial letter of request, and any documentation that serves as evidence or supports the argument you wish the Department to consider in making an administrative determination on your appeal. Appeals may be submitted using the on-line form available at www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/foia/foia-appeal-form.pdf. E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 202-401-0920 Mail: Appeals Office Office of the Secretary U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, LBJ 7W104 Washington, DC 20202-4500 If you have any questions, please contact the FOIA Service Center at (202) 401-8365 or visit our home page at www.ed.gov. Sincerely, Elise Cook Elise Cook Government Information Specialist Office of the Secretary
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY March 7, 2023 Michael Ayele A.K.A W P.O. Box 20438 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Re: Appeal No. 23-00018-A - FOIA Request No. 23-01164-F Dear Michael Ayele A.K.A. W: I am writing in response to your letter dated March 6, 2023, appealing the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department’s) March 3, 2023, decision to deny your March 3, 2023, request for a fee waiver and expedited processing pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Background You requested the Department to expedite processing “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 city/county/state government as well as sports federations such USA Gymnastics and the U.S Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC); [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.” Determination of Appeal Based on a careful review of the correspondence, the information at issue in your appeal, and applicable legal precedent, I have decided to grant your fee waiver request and deny your request to expedite. The reasons for my determination are discussed below. Discussion Your appeal challenges the Department’s improper denial of your fee waiver request and request to expedite. Regarding your fee waiver request, your fee waiver request has been granted by the Department. As to your request for expedited processing, the Department is denying your request. Fee Waiver Request You have provided sufficient information to satisfy other necessary factors that would entitle you to a waiver or reduction of fees. See 34 C.F.R. § 5.33(b). More specifically, you have provided justification to explain how copies of the requested records would contribute new significant
Michael Ayele Appeal No. 23-00018-A - FOIA Request No. 23-01164-F Page 2 information to the public’s understanding of the Department’s operations and how you would disseminate it to the public at large. You have also provided evidence demonstrating public interest in the documents. Expedited Processing You have failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate your entitlement to expedite processing. See 34 C.F.R. § 5.21(i)(2). More specifically, justification has not been provided to explain that your FOIA request involves one or more of the following: (A) A circumstance in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual. (B) The urgent need of a person primarily engaged in disseminating information to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity; or (C) Other circumstances that the Department determines demonstrate a compelling need for expedited processing. Notice of Further Rights You have the right to seek assistance and/or dispute resolution services from the Department’s FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). The FOIA Public Liaison is responsible, among other duties, for assisting in the resolution of FOIA disputes. OGIS, which is outside the Department of Education, offers mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. Contact information follows: Mail FOIA Public Liaison Office of Government Information Services Office of the Secretary National Archives and Records Administration E-mail U.S. Department of Education 8601 Adelphi Road Phone 400 Maryland Ave., SW Room 2510 Fax Room 7W104 College Park, MD 20740-6001 Washington, DC 20202-4536 [email protected] [email protected] 301-837-1996; toll free at 1-877-684-6448 NA 202-205-0733 202-401-0920
Michael Ayele Appeal No. 23-00018-A - FOIA Request No. 23-01164-F Page 3 If you are dissatisfied with my action on your appeal, you may file a lawsuit in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Sincerely, Deborah O. Moore, Ph.D. Chief FOIA Officer
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY FOIA Service Center March 3, 2023 Michael Ayele P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa, N/A Ethiopia RE: FOIA Request No. 23-01164-F This letter is in response to your request dated March 3, 2023, requesting information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Your request was received in this office on March 3, 2023. Your request has been assigned to the appropriate office(s) within the Department to search for documents that may be responsive to your request. In your request, you have asked for a waiver of all fees associated with the processing of your request. After reviewing your fee waiver request, your request for a fee waiver is denied. The Department has concluded that you have failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate your entitlement to a waiver of processing fees. More specifically, justification has not been provided to explain how the requested records would contribute significant information to the public’s understanding of the Department’s operations. You have also not provided any evidence demonstrating public interest in the documents. Accordingly, your requester category is determined to be an “all other use” requester and, therefore, subject to search fees after the first 2 hours, and duplication fees after the first 100 pages or $3.00 per CD. You indicated that you are willing to pay $25 for fees associated with processing your request. Until a search is completed and the number of pages is established, a firm estimate of potential fees cannot be provided. You will be notified if the fees associated with your request will exceed $25.00. Attached is general information of the FOIA Fees and Waivers. Should you still wish to claim that the Department’s processing fees should be waived, you must provide more specific and detailed evidence to support your claims under each statutory requirement described in the FOIA, available on the internet at: www.usdoj.gov/foia and outlined in the attachment to this letter. You have the right to seek assistance and/or dispute resolution services from the Department’s FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). The FOIA Public Liaison is responsible, among other duties, for assisting in the resolution of FOIA disputes. OGIS, which is outside the Department of Education, offers mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to appeals or litigation.
Page 2 – Michael Ayele FOIA Request No. 23-01164-F They can be contacted by: Mail FOIA Public Liaison Office of Government Information Services Office of the Secretary National Archives and Records Administration U.S. Department of Education 8601 Adelphi Road 400 Maryland Ave., SW Room 2510 LBJ 7W104 College Park, MD 20740-6001 Washington, DC 20202-4500 [email protected] E-mail [email protected] 301-837-1996; toll free at 1-877-684-6448 301-837-0348 Phone 202-205-0733 Fax 202-401-0920 Lastly, you have the right to appeal this determination. You must submit any appeal within 90 calendar days after the date of this letter. Using the services described above does not affect your right, or the deadline, to pursue an appeal. An appeal must be in writing and must include a detailed statement of all legal and factual bases for the appeal; it should be accompanied by a copy of this letter, the initial letter of request, and any documentation that serves as evidence or supports the argument you wish the Department to consider in resolving your appeal. Appeals may be submitted using the on-line form available at www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/foia/foia-appeal-form.pdf. Appeals can also be submitted by: E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 202-401-0920 Mail: Appeals Office Office of the Secretary U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, LBJ 7W104 Washington, DC 20202-4500 If you have any questions, or would like the original signed copy of this letter, please contact the FOIA Requester Service Center at (202) 401-8365 or via e-mail at [email protected] (please include the case number). Sincerely, Elise Cook Government Information Specialist Enclosure Freedom of Information Act FEES AND FEE Waivers (General Information)
Page 3 – Michael Ayele FOIA Request No. 23-01164-F The FOIA authorizes agencies to recover from requesters certain costs associated with processing requests made under the Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(A)(i) and (ii). The statute further provides for such fees to be waived in whole or in part where “disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii)(2000); 34 C.F.R. § 5.64. To qualify for a fee waiver, requesters must meet two statutory requirements. First, the requester must support the request with evidence that establishes that disclosure of the information sought is in the public interest. In order to determine this, the Department must consider the following four factors in order: 1. The subject matter of the requested records themselves must specifically concern identifiable “operations or activities of the government”; 2. In order for the disclosure to “likely contribute” to an understanding of specific government operations or activities, the disclosable portions of the requested information must be meaningfully informative in relation to the subject matter of the request; 3. The disclosure must contribute to the “understanding of the public at large,” as opposed to that of the individual requester or a narrow segment of interested persons. With regard to this element, requesters should address with particularity and in detail the requester’s subject matter expertise and intentions, ability, and methods of disseminating information to the public; and 4. The disclosure must “contribute significantly” to public understanding of government operations or activities. Requesters must meet all four elements of the public interest test outlined above to satisfy this first statutory requirement for a fee waiver. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of Justice, No. 03-5093, 2004 WL 980826 (D.C. Cir. May 7, 2004). If the first statutory requirement is met, the Department will then also determine whether the “disclosure of the information…is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). To determine whether this second requirement has been satisfied, the Department must consider the following two factors in order: 5. Does the request involve any “commercial interest of the requester” (if not, the requester satisfies the second prong of the statutory fee waiver test); and 6. If so, the agency must balance the requester’s commercial interest against the identified public interest in disclosure for the purpose of ascertaining which is the “primary interest;” a fee waiver or reduction may granted only where the public interest in disclosure is greater in magnitude than the requester’s commercial interest.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY FOIA Service Center March 3, 2023 Michael Ayele P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa, N/A Ethiopia RE: FOIA Request No. 23-01164-F Dear Michael Ayele: This letter is in response to your request dated March 3, 2023, requesting information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Your request was received in this office on March 3, 2023. Your request has been assigned to the appropriate office(s) within the Department to search for documents that may be responsive to your request. You have asked for expedited processing of your request. That request is denied. The Department has concluded that you have not demonstrated a compelling need for the information. In addition, you have not substantiated that there is an urgency to inform the public concerning any actual or alleged Federal Government activity. Enclosed with this letter is a general informational sheet for Expedited Processing. Should you still wish to claim that your request should be granted expedited processing, you must provide more specific and detailed evidence to support your claims under each statutory requirement described in our FOIA regulations available on the internet at: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/foia/foiatoc.html and outlined in the attachment to this letter. You have the right to seek assistance and/or dispute resolution services from the Department’s FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). The FOIA Public Liaison is responsible, among other duties, for assisting in the resolution of FOIA disputes. OGIS, which is outside the Department of Education, offers mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. They can be contacted by: Office of Government Information Services National Archives and Records Administration Mail FOIA Public Liaison 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 2510 Office of the Secretary College Park, MD 20740-6001 U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Ave., SW [email protected] LBJ 7W104 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448 Washington, DC 20202-4500 202-741-5769 E-mail [email protected] Phone 202-205-0733 Fax 202-401-0920
Page 2 – Michael Ayele FOIA Request 23-01164-F Lastly, you have the right to appeal this determination. You must submit any appeal within 90 calendar days after the date of this letter. Using the services described above does not affect your right, or the deadline, to pursue an appeal. An appeal must be in writing and must include a detailed statement of all legal and factual bases for the appeal; it should be accompanied by a copy of this letter, the initial letter of request, and any documentation that serves as evidence or supports the argument you wish the Department to consider in resolving your appeal. Appeals may be submitted using the on-line form available at www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/foia/foia- appeal-form.pdf. Appeals can also be submitted by: E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 202-401-0920 Mail: Appeals Office Office of the Secretary U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, LBJ 7W104 Washington, DC 20202-4500 If you have any questions, please contact the FOIA Requester Service Center at (202) 401-8365 or via e-mail at [email protected] (please include the case number). Sincerely, Elise Cook Government Information Specialist Enclosure
Page 2 – Michael Ayele FOIA Request 23-01164-F
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SECRETARY FOIA Service Center March 7, 2023 Mr. Michael Ayele P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa, N/A Ethiopia RE: Appeal – FOIA Request No. 23-01164-F/ Appeal – 23-00018-A Dear Michael Ayele: This is to acknowledge receipt of your March 6, 2023 letter appealing the Department’s decision to deny your request for a fee waiver and request to expedite under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, which was received by this office on March 7, 2023. An administrative review of our response is underway, and the Department’s Chief FOIA Officer will issue a determination on the appeal once it is completed. Please refer to the appeal tracking number to check the status of your appeal at the link provided below: https://foiaxpress.pal.ed.gov/app/CheckStatus.aspx If you have a question or concern, please contact the FOIA Office at (202) 401-8365 or [email protected]. Sincerely, Art Caliguiran Art Caliguiran FOIA Appeals Coordinator Office of the Secretary
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL March 3, 2023 VIA EMAIL W (ACCL) Michael A. Ayele P.O. BOX 20438 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia [email protected] RE: FOIA Request No. 23-00031-F-IG Dear W: This is in response to your March 3, 2023 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the United States Department of Education (ED) Office of Inspector General (OIG) for records detailing: [1] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (OIG) to initiate an “investigation based on allegations that Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) employees in the FBI’s Indianapolis Field Office mishandled allegations of sexual abuse of athletes by former USA Gymnastics physician Lawrence Gerard Nassar;” [2] your discussions about the DOJ (OIG) as a United States federal government agency, which recognizes that (i) “Nassar was employed as an Osteopathic Physician and Associate Professor at Michigan State University’s (MSU) Department of Family and Community Medicine, where he treated patients from 1996 to 2016,” (ii) “Nassar was employed as the USA Gymnastics National Medical Coordinator and a treating physician for gymnasts” between 1996 and 2016, (iii) “Nassar worked in Michigan as the team physician for the Twistars USA Gymnastics Club and at Holt High School,’ (iv) “Nassar treated athletes (…) at the USA Gymnastics National Team Training Center in Texas;” [3] your discussions about the decision of former USA Gymnastics President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Stephen D. Penny to initiate contact with the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office (sometime in July 2015) for the purpose of informing them about the sexual violence Lawrence Gerard Nassar committed on Alexandra Rose Raisman (a.k.a) Aly Raisman, Margareth Mary Nichols (a.k.a) Maggie Nichols and McKayala Maroney; [4] your discussions about Lawrence Gerard Nassar as a sexual predator, who continued to abuse young women and girls even after Aly Raisman, Mckayla Maroney and Maggie Nichols filed complaints against him with USA Gymnastics; [5] your discussions about Lawrence Gerard Nassar as a sexual predator, who abused approximately 70 (seventy) young women and girls between July 2015 and September 2015 before making the decision to retire from his USA Gymnastic employment position in September 2015; [6] the written notes taken by the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office after being informed of the sexual violence Lawrence Gerard Nassar committed on Aly Raisman, Maggie Nichols and McKayla Maroney; [7] your discussions about the finding of the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office, which concluded that “there was no venue in Indianapolis since Indianapolis had no connection to any of the alleged illegal activity” Stephen D. Penny informed them of sometime in July 2015; [8] your discussions about the finding of the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office and the Assistant U.S Attorney (AUSA), which concluded that “if the FBI had jurisdiction” over the many sexual violence Lawrence Gerard Nassar committed upon young women and girls, 400 MARYLAND AVENUE, S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-1510 Promoting the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department’s programs and operations.
Page 2 – FOIA Request No. 23-00031-F-IG “venue would likely be most appropriate in the Western District of Michigan and the FBI’s Lansing Resident Agency, where Michigan State University (MSU) is located and where Nassar treated patients;” [9] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office not to refer the complaints filed against Lawrence Gerard Nassar to the appropriate local/state government authorities in the State of Michigan after July 2015; [10] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office not to refer the complaints filed against Lawrence Gerard Nassar to the FBI office in Lansing, Michigan; [11] the extent of your knowledge on whether the DOJ (FBI) ever reached out to (your) local/state government agency(ies) after being informed that women are/were being subjected to sexual violence by a predator similarly situated to Lawrence Gerard Nassar between January 01st 2010 and July 31st 2021; [12] the time and the mechanism by which the DOJ (FBI) reached out to (your) local/state government agency(ies) for the purpose of informing them that women are/were being subjected to sexual violence by a predator similarly situated to Lawrence Gerard Nassar;iv [13] the actions taken and the response provided by (your) local/state government agency(ies) upon being informed by the DOJ (FBI) that women are/were being subjected to sexual violence by a predator similarly situated to Lawrence Gerard Nassar; [14] your discussions about the decision of USA Gymnastics officials to contact the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office in May 2016 for the purpose of reporting “the same allegations concerning Nassar that it had provided to the Indianapolis Field Office in July 2015;” [15] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (FBI) Los Angeles Field Office to initiate contact with a Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) in the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office for the purpose of finding out what they have done since being informed of the sexual violence perpetrated by Lawrence Gerard Nassar upon women and girls; [16] the conversations that took place between the DOJ (FBI) Los Angeles Field Office and the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office about the sexual violence Lawrence Gerard Nassar committed on women and girls; [17] the standard FBI Complaint Form (FD-71) and the FBI Interview Report Form (FD-302); [18] your discussions about the actions taken by the DOJ (FBI) Los Angeles Field Office upon being informed that Lawrence Gerard Nassar was a sexual predator; [19] your discussions about the circumstances, which led the Michigan State University Police Department (MSUPD) to execute a search warrant at Lawrence Gerard Nassar place of residence on September 20th 2016; [20] the search warrant executed by the MSUPD on the home of Lawrence Gerard Nassar; [21] the conversations that took place between MSU and the Department of Education (DoED) about the sexual abuse perpetrated by Lawrence Gerard Nassar;v [22] your discussions about Lawrence Gerard Nassar as a sexual predator, who had child pornography at his place of residence on September 20th 2016; [23] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (FBI) Lansing Resident Agency to open an investigation into Lawrence Gerard Nassar after news reports indicating that Lawrence Gerard Nassar had child pornography at his place of residence on September 20th 2016; [24] the termination of employment letters sent out by Michigan State University, Twistars USA Gymnastics Club and Holt High School to Lawrence Gerard Nassar following the September 2016 news reports; [25] your discussions about the decision of the Michigan Attorney General to file “multiple counts of criminal sexual conduct” charges against Lawrence Gerard Nassar sometime in November 2016; [26] the criminal charges filed by the Michigan Attorney General against Lawrence Gerard Nassar sometime in November 2016; [27] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (FBI) to arrest Lawrence Gerard Nassar in December 2016 on “federal possession of child pornography charges related to the images seized during the search of his residence” on September 20th 2016; [28] the DOJ (FBI) December 2016 arrest report of Lawrence Gerard Nassar; [29] your discussions about the decision of Lawrence Gerard Nassar to plead guilty to “Receipt and Attempted Receipt of Child Pornography, Possession of Child Pornography and Destruction and Concealment of Records and Tangible Objects;” [30] your discussions about Lawrence Gerard
Page 3 – FOIA Request No. 23-00031-F-IG Nassar as a sexual predator, who was sentenced to 60 (sixty) years in federal prison in December 2017 after he pleaded guilty to “Receipt and Attempted Receipt of Child Pornography, Possession of Child Pornography, and Destruction and Concealment of Records and Tangible Objects;” [31] your discussions about Lawrence Gerard Nassar as a sexual predator, who has “in November 2017 (…) pleaded guilty to seven counts of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct;” [32] your discussions about Lawrence Gerard Nassar as a sexual predator, who was in January 2018 “sentenced to 40 to 175 years in Michigan state prison;” [33] your discussions about Lawrence Gerard Nassar as a sexual predator, who was in February 2018 sentenced “to an additional 40 to 125 years in prison” after “pleading guilty to 3 additional counts of criminal misconduct;” [34] your discussions about the finding of the DOJ (OIG) which concluded that (i) “the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office failed to respond to the Nassar allegations with the utmost seriousness and urgency that they deserved and required, made numerous errors when they did respond to them, and violated multiple FBI policies,”(ii) the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office failed to interview Maggie Nichols vi and Aly Raisman vii in July 2015 even though they had filed sexual abuse complaints against Lawrence Gerard Nassar, (iii) the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office interviewed McKayla Maroney after she had filed a sexual abuse complaint against Lawrence Gerard Nassar, but the Indianapolis Field Office intentionally and deliberately misrepresented the statements she made to them,viii (iv) the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office intentionally and deliberately misled the DOJ (FBI) Los Angeles Field Office by informing them that they had referred the case of Lawrence Gerard Nassar to the DOJ (FBI) Lansing Resident Agency, (v) the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office “did not take responsibility for their failures,” but “instead (…) provided incomplete and inaccurate information in response to FBI internal inquiries (and Abbott, after he retired, provided inaccurate information to the media) to make it appear that the Indianapolis office had been diligent in its follow-up efforts and they did so, in part, by blaming others for their own failures;” [35] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (OIG) to recommend for the DOJ (FBI) to “reassess its policies to (i) more precisely describe for FBI employees when they are required to promptly contact and coordinate with applicable state and local law enforcement and social service agencies after receiving allegations of crimes against children that potentially fall under state jurisdiction, even when the allegations also potentially fall within the FBI’s jurisdiction, (ii) require FBI employees to confirm receipt of transfers between field offices of certain categories of complaints, such as complaints of serious or multi-victim sexual abuse, (iii) clarify when interviews by Child/Adolescent Forensic Interviewers (CAFI) should be conducted of children and adults reporting allegations of abuse they experienced as children, (iv) describe the circumstances under which victim services should be offered during Pre-Assessment of Assessment activities, such as when these phases take longer than expected when a victim is interviewed as part of these phases, or when an initial complaint is transferred field offices;” [36] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (OIG) to recommend for the DOJ (FBI) to “clarify its policies as to (i) the type of approval required (including who is required to provide approval) when a supervisor conducts investigative activity or completes documentation that would require supervisory approval when conducted by a nonsupervisory Special Agent, (ii) whether Pre-Assessment activities can continue for more than 5 days, (iii) what type of file FBI employees should use to retain documentation received during Pre-Assessment activities that continue for more than 5 days, (iv) whether FBI employees should open an Assessment when the employees need more than 5 days to assess whether there are alleged violations of federal law and which field office has venue;” ix [37] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ to terminate the employment of Michael Langeman for his handling of the Lawrence Gerard Nassar case sometime in the month of September 2021;x [38] the termination of employment letter given to Michael Langeman by the DOJ; [39] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ not to file
Page 4 – FOIA Request No. 23-00031-F-IG criminal charges against former FBI agents Michael Langeman and W. Jay Abbott for their handling of the Lawrence Gerard Nasser case; xi [40] your discussions about the culture of systemic sexual harassment within the FBI that targets women because of their gender;xii [41] your discussions about the decision of many U.S women Olympic gymnasts to file a complaint against the DOJ (FBI) on (or around) June 08th 2022 for their handling of the sexual violence they have experienced when Lawrence Gerard Nassar was their treating physician; xiii [42] the complaint filed against the DOJ (FBI) in the judicial branch of the U.S government for $1 (one) billion (U.S dollars) on or around June 08th 2022; [43] the discussions, which were had at the DOJ since the filing of the June 08th 2022 complaint for $1 billion; [44] the responses provided by the DOJ (FBI) to the complaint filed on (or around) June 08th 2022 for $1 billion; [45] the mechanism by which your local/state government officials can be reported on and be held accountable in the event they intentionally botch a sexual abuse case brought forward by a woman (above the age of 18) and/or a girl (below the age of 18); [46] your discussions about the mechanism by which your local/state government officials can be reported on and be held accountable in the event they deliberately botch a sexual abuse case brought forward by a woman (above the age of 18) and/or a girl (below the age of 18). This request does not reasonably describe records that would be maintained by ED OIG as required by 34 C.F.R. § 5.20(b) and 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). Therefore, the OIG is unable to process and will take no action on your request. For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c) (2006 & Supp. IV 2010). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist. Consistent with the FOIA, the OIG confirms that, if it is providing responsive records, it has considered the foreseeable harm standard when reviewing those records and applying any FOIA exemptions. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A). If you are not satisfied with my action on this request, you may file an administrative appeal by writing within 90 calendar days of the date of this letter to the: Inspector General U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W. ATTN: FOIA Appeals Washington, DC 20202-1500 A copy of your initial request, a copy of this letter and your statement of circumstances, reasons, and arguments should accompany your appeal letter. You may also submit an appeal by email to [email protected]. Due to mail delays, email submission is preferred. Please include “FOIA Appeal” and your request number in the subject line. If you submitted your initial request through the Department’s online FOIA portal, you may also submit your appeal through the same portal here. You also have the right to seek assistance and/or dispute resolution services from our OIG FOIA Public Liaison or from the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). The OIG FOIA Public Liaison is responsible, among other duties, for assisting in the resolution of FOIA disputes. OGIS, which is
Page 5 – FOIA Request No. 23-00031-F-IG outside the Department of Education, offers mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to appeals or litigation. You may contact the OIG FOIA Public Liaison or OGIS as follows: Mail Lorian Beasley Office of Government Information Services OIG FOIA Public Liaison National Archives and Records E-mail Office of the Inspector General Administration Phone U.S. Department of Education 8601 Adelphi Road Fax 400 Maryland Ave., SW Room 2510 Washington, DC 20202-1500 College Park, MD 20740-6001 [email protected] [email protected] 202-826-4720 301-837-1996; toll free at 1-877-684-6448 202-245-7039 301-837-0348 Seeking assistance from the OIG FOIA Public Liaison or OGIS does not affect your right, or the deadline, to pursue an appeal. Sincerely, ANTIGONE POTAMIANOS Digitally signed by ANTIGONE POTAMIANOS Date: 2023.03.03 09:54:57 -05'00' Antigone Potamianos Counsel to the Inspector General cc: FOIA Service Center
REQUEST FOR RECORDS 03/03/2023 W (AACL) Date.: March 03rd 2023 Michael A. Ayele P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia E-mail : [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] Request for Records Hello, This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W. You may call me W. I am writing this letter to file a request for records with your office. i The bases for this records request are [1] the July 2021 report published by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on the subject of “the Federal Bureau of Investigation Handling of Allegations of Sexual Abuse by Former USA Gymnastics Physician Lawrence Gerard Nassar” ii and [2] the September 15th 2021 hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Committee on the DOJ (OIG) July 2021 report mentioned above. iii I) Requested Records What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are records in your possession detailing [1] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (OIG) to initiate an “investigation based on allegations that Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) employees in the FBI’s Indianapolis Field Office mishandled allegations of sexual abuse of athletes by former USA Gymnastics physician Lawrence Gerard Nassar;” [2] your discussions about the DOJ (OIG) as a United States federal government agency, which recognizes that (i) “Nassar was employed as an Osteopathic Physician and Associate Professor at Michigan State University’s (MSU) Department of Family and Community Medicine, where he treated patients from 1996 to 2016,” (ii) “Nassar was employed as the USA Gymnastics National Medical Coordinator and a treating physician for gymnasts” between 1996 and 2016, (iii) “Nassar worked in Michigan as the team physician for the Twistars USA Gymnastics Club and at Holt High School,’ (iv) “Nassar treated athletes (…) at the USA Gymnastics National Team Training Center in Texas;” [3] your discussions about the decision of former USA Gymnastics President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Stephen D. Penny to initiate contact with the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office (sometime in July 2015) for the purpose of informing them about the sexual violence Lawrence Gerard Nassar committed on Alexandra Rose Raisman (a.k.a) Aly Raisman, Margareth Mary Nichols (a.k.a) Maggie Nichols and McKayala Maroney; [4] your discussions about Lawrence Gerard Nassar as a sexual predator, who continued to abuse young women and girls even after Aly Raisman, Mckayla Maroney and Maggie Nichols filed complaints against him with USA Gymnastics; [5] your discussions about Lawrence Gerard Nassar as a sexual predator, who abused approximately 70 (seventy) young women and girls between July 2015 and September 2015 before making the decision to retire from his USA Gymnastic employment position in September 2015; [6] the written notes taken by the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office after being informed of the sexual violence Lawrence Gerard Nassar committed on Aly Raisman, Maggie Nichols and McKayla Maroney; [7] your discussions about the finding of the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field MICHAEL AYELE (A.K.A) W 1
REQUEST FOR RECORDS 03/03/2023 Office, which concluded that “there was no venue in Indianapolis since Indianapolis had no connection to any of the alleged illegal activity” Stephen D. Penny informed them of sometime in July 2015; [8] your discussions about the finding of the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office and the Assistant U.S Attorney (AUSA), which concluded that “if the FBI had jurisdiction” over the many sexual violence Lawrence Gerard Nassar committed upon young women and girls, “venue would likely be most appropriate in the Western District of Michigan and the FBI’s Lansing Resident Agency, where Michigan State University (MSU) is located and where Nassar treated patients;” [9] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office not to refer the complaints filed against Lawrence Gerard Nassar to the appropriate local/state government authorities in the State of Michigan after July 2015; [10] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office not to refer the complaints filed against Lawrence Gerard Nassar to the FBI office in Lansing, Michigan; [11] the extent of your knowledge on whether the DOJ (FBI) ever reached out to (your) local/state government agency(ies) after being informed that women are/were being subjected to sexual violence by a predator similarly situated to Lawrence Gerard Nassar between January 01st 2010 and July 31st 2021; [12] the time and the mechanism by which the DOJ (FBI) reached out to (your) local/state government agency(ies) for the purpose of informing them that women are/were being subjected to sexual violence by a predator similarly situated to Lawrence Gerard Nassar;iv [13] the actions taken and the response provided by (your) local/state government agency(ies) upon being informed by the DOJ (FBI) that women are/were being subjected to sexual violence by a predator similarly situated to Lawrence Gerard Nassar; [14] your discussions about the decision of USA Gymnastics officials to contact the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office in May 2016 for the purpose of reporting “the same allegations concerning Nassar that it had provided to the Indianapolis Field Office in July 2015;” [15] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (FBI) Los Angeles Field Office to initiate contact with a Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) in the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office for the purpose of finding out what they have done since being informed of the sexual violence perpetrated by Lawrence Gerard Nassar upon women and girls; [16] the conversations that took place between the DOJ (FBI) Los Angeles Field Office and the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office about the sexual violence Lawrence Gerard Nassar committed on women and girls; [17] the standard FBI Complaint Form (FD-71) and the FBI Interview Report Form (FD-302); [18] your discussions about the actions taken by the DOJ (FBI) Los Angeles Field Office upon being informed that Lawrence Gerard Nassar was a sexual predator; [19] your discussions about the circumstances, which led the Michigan State University Police Department (MSUPD) to execute a search warrant at Lawrence Gerard Nassar place of residence on September 20th 2016; [20] the search warrant executed by the MSUPD on the home of Lawrence Gerard Nassar; [21] the conversations that took place between MSU and the Department of Education (DoED) about the sexual abuse perpetrated by Lawrence Gerard Nassar;v [22] your discussions about Lawrence Gerard Nassar as a sexual predator, who had child pornography at his place of residence on September 20th 2016; [23] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (FBI) Lansing Resident Agency to open an investigation into Lawrence Gerard Nassar after news reports indicating that Lawrence Gerard Nassar had child pornography at his place of residence on September 20th 2016; [24] the termination of employment letters sent out by Michigan State University, Twistars USA Gymnastics Club and Holt High School to Lawrence Gerard Nassar following the September 2016 news reports; [25] your discussions about the decision of the Michigan Attorney General to file “multiple counts of criminal sexual conduct” charges against Lawrence Gerard Nassar sometime in November 2016; [26] the MICHAEL AYELE (A.K.A) W 2
REQUEST FOR RECORDS 03/03/2023 criminal charges filed by the Michigan Attorney General against Lawrence Gerard Nassar sometime in November 2016; [27] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (FBI) to arrest Lawrence Gerard Nassar in December 2016 on “federal possession of child pornography charges related to the images seized during the search of his residence” on September 20th 2016; [28] the DOJ (FBI) December 2016 arrest report of Lawrence Gerard Nassar; [29] your discussions about the decision of Lawrence Gerard Nassar to plead guilty to “Receipt and Attempted Receipt of Child Pornography, Possession of Child Pornography and Destruction and Concealment of Records and Tangible Objects;” [30] your discussions about Lawrence Gerard Nassar as a sexual predator, who was sentenced to 60 (sixty) years in federal prison in December 2017 after he pleaded guilty to “Receipt and Attempted Receipt of Child Pornography, Possession of Child Pornography, and Destruction and Concealment of Records and Tangible Objects;” [31] your discussions about Lawrence Gerard Nassar as a sexual predator, who has “in November 2017 (…) pleaded guilty to seven counts of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct;” [32] your discussions about Lawrence Gerard Nassar as a sexual predator, who was in January 2018 “sentenced to 40 to 175 years in Michigan state prison;” [33] your discussions about Lawrence Gerard Nassar as a sexual predator, who was in February 2018 sentenced “to an additional 40 to 125 years in prison” after “pleading guilty to 3 additional counts of criminal misconduct;” [34] your discussions about the finding of the DOJ (OIG) which concluded that (i) “the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office failed to respond to the Nassar allegations with the utmost seriousness and urgency that they deserved and required, made numerous errors when they did respond to them, and violated multiple FBI policies,”(ii) the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office failed to interview Maggie Nichols vi and Aly Raisman vii in July 2015 even though they had filed sexual abuse complaints against Lawrence Gerard Nassar, (iii) the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office interviewed McKayla Maroney after she had filed a sexual abuse complaint against Lawrence Gerard Nassar, but the Indianapolis Field Office intentionally and deliberately misrepresented the statements she made to them,viii (iv) the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office intentionally and deliberately misled the DOJ (FBI) Los Angeles Field Office by informing them that they had referred the case of Lawrence Gerard Nassar to the DOJ (FBI) Lansing Resident Agency, (v) the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office “did not take responsibility for their failures,” but “instead (…) provided incomplete and inaccurate information in response to FBI internal inquiries (and Abbott, after he retired, provided inaccurate information to the media) to make it appear that the Indianapolis office had been diligent in its follow-up efforts and they did so, in part, by blaming others for their own failures;” [35] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (OIG) to recommend for the DOJ (FBI) to “reassess its policies to (i) more precisely describe for FBI employees when they are required to promptly contact and coordinate with applicable state and local law enforcement and social service agencies after receiving allegations of crimes against children that potentially fall under state jurisdiction, even when the allegations also potentially fall within the FBI’s jurisdiction, (ii) require FBI employees to confirm receipt of transfers between field offices of certain categories of complaints, such as complaints of serious or multi-victim sexual abuse, (iii) clarify when interviews by Child/Adolescent Forensic Interviewers (CAFI) should be conducted of children and adults reporting allegations of abuse they experienced as children, (iv) describe the circumstances under which victim services should be offered during Pre-Assessment of Assessment activities, such as when these phases take longer than expected when a victim is interviewed as part of these phases, or when an initial complaint is transferred field offices;” [36] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ (OIG) to recommend for the DOJ (FBI) to MICHAEL AYELE (A.K.A) W 3
REQUEST FOR RECORDS 03/03/2023 “clarify its policies as to (i) the type of approval required (including who is required to provide approval) when a supervisor conducts investigative activity or completes documentation that would require supervisory approval when conducted by a nonsupervisory Special Agent, (ii) whether Pre-Assessment activities can continue for more than 5 days, (iii) what type of file FBI employees should use to retain documentation received during Pre-Assessment activities that continue for more than 5 days, (iv) whether FBI employees should open an Assessment when the employees need more than 5 days to assess whether there are alleged violations of federal law and which field office has venue;” ix [37] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ to terminate the employment of Michael Langeman for his handling of the Lawrence Gerard Nassar case sometime in the month of September 2021;x [38] the termination of employment letter given to Michael Langeman by the DOJ; [39] your discussions about the decision of the DOJ not to file criminal charges against former FBI agents Michael Langeman and W. Jay Abbott for their handling of the Lawrence Gerard Nasser case; xi [40] your discussions about the culture of systemic sexual harassment within the FBI that targets women because of their gender;xii [41] your discussions about the decision of many U.S women Olympic gymnasts to file a complaint against the DOJ (FBI) on (or around) June 08th 2022 for their handling of the sexual violence they have experienced when Lawrence Gerard Nassar was their treating physician; xiii [42] the complaint filed against the DOJ (FBI) in the judicial branch of the U.S government for $1 (one) billion (U.S dollars) on or around June 08th 2022; [43] the discussions, which were had at the DOJ since the filing of the June 08th 2022 complaint for $1 billion; [44] the responses provided by the DOJ (FBI) to the complaint filed on (or around) June 08th 2022 for $1 billion; [45] the mechanism by which your local/state government officials can be reported on and be held accountable in the event they intentionally botch a sexual abuse case brought forward by a woman (above the age of 18) and/or a girl (below the age of 18); [46] your discussions about the mechanism by which your local/state government officials can be reported on and be held accountable in the event they deliberately botch a sexual abuse case brought forward by a woman (above the age of 18) and/or a girl (below the age of 18). II) Request for a Fee Waiver and Expedited Processing The requested records do/will demonstrate that [1] the former USA Gymnastics President and CEO Stephen D. Penny initiated contact with the Department of Justice (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office sometime in July 2015 for the purpose of representing the sexual abuse complaints filed by Aly Raisman, McKayla Maroney and Maggie Nichols in a way one can actually describe as biased, discriminatory, misogynistic and sexist; [2] the former USA Gymnastics President and CEO Stephen D. Penny initiated contact with the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office for the purpose of providing legal cover to the misogynistic and sexist practices that exist within USA Gymnastics; [3] the former USA Gymnastics President and CEO Stephen D. Penny has exerted a non-negligible amount of effort in concert with the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office for the purpose of minimizing the sexual abuse suffered by Aly Raisman, McKayla Maroney and Maggie Nichols; [4] the former USA Gymnastics President and CEO Stephen D. Penny has exerted a non-negligible amount of effort in concert with the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office for the purpose of muzzling and silencing Aly Raisman, Maggie Nichols and McKayla Maroney from speaking about the sexual abuse they have suffered at the hand of sexual predator Lawrence Gerard Nassar; [5] Aly MICHAEL AYELE (A.K.A) W 4
REQUEST FOR RECORDS 03/03/2023 Raisman, Maggie Nichols and McKayla Maroney are well-known gymnasts, who had in 2015 filed a sexual abuse complaint against Lawrence Gerard Nassar with USA Gymnastics; [6] Lawrence Gerard Nassar is a sexual predator, who was previously employed as (i) an Osteopathic Physician and Associate Professor at Michigan State University (MSU) Department of Family and Community Medicine, (ii) the USA Gymnastics National Medical Coordinator and a treating physician for gymnasts, (iii) the team physician for the Twistars USA Gymnastics Club and at Holt High School; [7] Lawrence Gerard Nassar is a sexual predator, who abused approximately 70 young women and girls (while he was employed as a medical doctor) even after Aly Raisman, Kayla Maroney and Maggie Nichols filed sexual abuse complaints against him with USA Gymnastics; [8] Lawrence Gerard Nassar is a sexual predator, who has (i) pleaded guilty to “Receipt and Attempted Receipt of Child Pornography, Possession of Child Pornography, and Destruction and Concealment of Records and Tangible Objects,” (ii) been sentenced to 60 years in federal prison in December 2017 after he pleaded guilty to “Receipt and Attempted Receipt of Child Pornography, Possession of Child Pornography, and Destruction and Concealment of Records and Tangible Object,” (iii) in November 2017 “pleaded guilty to seven counts of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct,” (iv) in January 2018 been “sentenced to 40 to 175 years in Michigan state prison,” (v) in February 2018 been sentenced “to an additional 40 to 125 years in prison” after “pleading guilty to 3 additional counts of criminal misconduct;” [9] the DOJ (OIG) is a federal agency of the U.S government, which has in July 2021 concluded that (i) “the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office failed to respond to the Nassar allegations with the utmost seriousness and urgency that they deserved and required, made numerous errors when they did respond to them, and violated multiple FBI policies,” (ii) the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office failed to interview Aly Raisman and Maggie Nichols in July 2015 even though they had filed sexual abuse complaints against Lawrence Gerrard Nassar, (iii) the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office interviewed McKayla Maroney after she had filed a sexual abuse complaint against Lawrence Gerrard Nassar, but the Indianapolis Field Office intentionally and deliberately misrepresented the statements she made to them, (iv) the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office intentionally and deliberately misled the DOJ (FBI) Los Angeles Field Office by informing them that they had referred the case of Lawrence Gerard Nasser to the DOJ (FBI) Lansing Resident Agency, (v) the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office “did not take responsibility for their failures,” but “instead (…) provided incomplete and inaccurate information in response to FBI internal inquiries (and Abbott, after he retired, provided inaccurate information to the media) to make it appear that the Indianapolis office had been diligent in its follow-up efforts and they did so, in part, by blaming others for their own failures;” [10] the DOJ (OIG) is a federal agency of the U.S government, which has recommended for the DOJ (FBI) to “reassess its policies to (i) more precisely describe for FBI employees when they are required to promptly contact and coordinate with applicable state and local law enforcement and social service agencies after receiving allegations of crimes against children that potentially fall under state jurisdiction, even when the allegations also potentially fall within the FBI’s jurisdiction, (ii) require FBI employees to confirm receipt of transfers between field offices of certain categories of complaints, such as complaints of serious or multi-victim sexual abuse, (iii) clarify when interviews by Child/Adolescent Forensic Interviewers (CAFI) should be conducted MICHAEL AYELE (A.K.A) W 5
REQUEST FOR RECORDS 03/03/2023 of children and adults reporting allegations of abuse they experienced as children, (iv) describe the circumstances under which victim services should be offered during Pre-Assessment of Assessment activities, such as when these phases take longer than expected when a victim is interviewed as part of these phases, or when an initial complaint is transferred field offices;” [11] the DOJ (OIG) is a federal agency of the U.S government, which has recommended for the DOJ (FBI) “clarify its policies as to (i) the type of approval required (including who is required to provide approval) when a supervisor conducts investigative activity or completes documentation that would require supervisory approval when conducted by a nonsupervisory Special Agent, (ii) whether Pre-Assessment activities can continue for more than 5 days, (iii) what type of file FBI employees should use to retain documentation received during Pre- Assessment activities that continue for more than 5 days, (iv) whether FBI employees should open an Assessment when the employees need more than 5 days to assess whether there are alleged violations of federal law and which field office has venue;” [12] the DOJ have opted to terminate the employment Michael Langeman from the DOJ (FBI) for his handling of the Gerard Lawrence Nassar case sometime in September 2021 following the publication of the DOJ (OIG) July 2021 report; [13] a $1 billion civil complaint has been filed (sometime in June 2022) against the DOJ (FBI) by the legal representatives of people, who were sexually abused by Gerard Lawrence Nassar; [14] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who came to the U.S.A in December 2009 on an F-1 Visa granted to him by the Department of State (DoS); [15] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who came to the U.S.A for the purpose of obtaining a Bachelor of Arts (B.A) Degree from Westminster College (located in Fulton, Missouri); [16] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who has earned a B.A Degree from Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) on Saturday, December 31st 2016; [17] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who has been in on and off contact with the Department of Justice (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about the rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery; [18] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who had informed the DOJ (FBI) that he was told what constitute “affirmative and effective consent” at Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) in January 2010 (shortly after his arrival on U.S territory in the month of December 2009); [19] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who had informed the DOJ (FBI) that he was told what constitute “affirmative and effective consent” after he was told about the rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery (in January 2010); [20] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who had informed the DOJ (FBI) that he was told what constitute “affirmative and effective” after he was told about the rape and murder of a Caucasian woman by a Black/African American man (in January 2010); [21] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who had previously asked for the DOJ (FBI) to disclose (to him) responsive information they had on the rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery; [22] the DOJ (FBI) is a federal agency, which has informed Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that they’ve contacted the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) about the rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery; [22] the DOJ (FBI) is a federal agency, which has informed Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that they had assigned the case of Jeanne Ann Clery to the CIA on (or around) June 11th 1992; [23] the DOJ (FBI) is a federal agency, which has informed Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that they were contacted by his alma mater Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) on August 29th 1986 (approximately five months following the rape and murder of MICHAEL AYELE (A.K.A) W 6
REQUEST FOR RECORDS 03/03/2023 Jeanne Ann Clery); [24] the DOJ (FBI) is a federal agency, which has informed Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that they were contacted by his alma mater (Westminster College on August 29th 1986) because they had extended an invitation to their then-Director William Webster to “deliver the 1987 Commencement Address on Sunday, May 17th 1987 at 2:30 P.M;”xiv [25] William Webster is a Caucasian man, who has previously worked as Director of the FBI (from 1978 to 1987) and Director of the CIA (from 1987 to 1991); [26] the CIA have informed Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that they were never assigned the case of Jeanne Ann Clery rape and murder by the FBI on (or around) June 11th 1992; [27] the CIA have informed Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that they have no information (to disclose to him) about the rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery and that he should contact the FBI and the Department of Education (DoED) to obtain pertinent records about Jeanne Clery and the Jeanne Clery Act;xv [28] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who is very much displeased by the way the CIA, the DOJ (FBI) and the DOED xvi have processed his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on the life and death of Jeanne Ann Clery; [29] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who is very much displeased with the way that Michigan State University (MSU) processed his records request about the Jeanne Clery Act as well as their September 2022 report about “Race and Wrongful Convictions in the U.S.A;”xvii [30] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who was in January 2015 informed about the sexual assault of Chanel Miller on the campus of Stanford University; [39] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who was in the month of June 2016 informed that Brock Turner was convicted of sexually assaulting Chanel Miller on the campus of Stanford University;xviii [40] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who was (for what seems to him very obvious reasons) shocked upon learning in June 2016 that Brock Turner will be spending 90 (ninety) days in prison for the sexual assault of Chanel Miller on the campus of Stanford University;xix [41] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who has previously corresponded with the San Francisco Public Library (SFPL) about their efforts to bring to national attention the memoir written by Chanel Miller;xx [42] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who has previously corresponded with the National Council on Disability (NCD) on the subject of their 2000 report dealing with the forcible administration of psychotropic drugs;xxi [43] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who’s very much vexed by the way that the DOJ (FBI) processed his FOIA request about the November 02nd 2018 shooting carried out by racist and sexist Scott Paul Beierle.xxii 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 of the U.S government overall, and more particularly in the engagements of the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office. As a Black man with a U.S college degree, who was in January 2010 informed what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent,” I would like to take this opportunity to [1] denounce violence committed against women irrespective of their racial backgrounds, their sexual orientations, their national origins, their religious affiliations, their disability status, their age groups and/or their name recognition in the U.S.A and/or internationally; [2] denounce the sexual abuse experienced by Aly Raisman, Maggie Nichols, McKayla Maroney and Simone Biles at the hands of sexual predator Lawrence Gerard Nassar; [3] denounce the sexual abuse experienced by people, who MICHAEL AYELE (A.K.A) W 7
REQUEST FOR RECORDS 03/03/2023 may have had Lawrence Gerard Nassar as their treating physician; [4] condemn the DOJ (FBI) Indianapolis Field Office handling of the Lawrence Gerard Nassar case; [5] express grave concerns about the exact manner I was informed what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in January 2010; [6] condemn the rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery on April 05th 1986; [7] condemn the sexual violence experienced by Chanel Miller on January 18th 2015; [9] express grave concerns about the manner in which my records request about the Jeanne Clery Act was processed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Department of Education (DoED), the DOJ and Michigan State University (MSU); [10] condemn the discrimination, the misogyny, the racism and the sexism I have had the displeasure to witness; [11] condemn the manner in which the DOJ (FBI) processed my FOIA request about the November 02nd 2018 shooting carried out by racist and sexist Scott Paul Beierle. The core issues presented in this records request are as follows. 1) Have you had conversations about the July 2021 recommendation of the DOJ (OIG), which asked for the FBI to “reassess its policies to (i) more precisely describe for FBI employees when they are required to promptly contact and coordinate with applicable state and local law enforcement and social service agencies after receiving allegations of crimes against children that potentially fall under state jurisdiction, even when the allegations also potentially fall within the FBI’s jurisdiction, (ii) require FBI employees to confirm receipt of transfers between field offices of certain categories of complaints, such as complaints of serious or multi-victim sexual abuse, (iii) clarify when interviews by Child/Adolescent Forensic Interviewers (CAFI) should be conducted of children and adults reporting allegations of abuse they experienced as children, (iv) describe the circumstances under which victim services should be offered during Pre-Assessment of Assessment activities, such as when these phases take longer than expected when a victim is interviewed as part of these phases, or when an initial complaint is transferred field offices?” If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 2) Has your local/state government ever been contacted by the DOJ (FBI) about a similarly situated sexual predator to Lawrence Gerard Nassar? If yes, will you disclose the time and the mechanism by which the DOJ (FBI) initiated contact with your local/state government about a similarly situated sexual predator to Lawrence Gerard Nassar? Will you disclose the reporting obligations of your local/state government upon being informed by the FBI that women are/were subjected to sexual abuse by a similarly situated sexual predator to Lawrence Gerard Nassar? Will you also disclose the response provided by your local/state government to the DOJ (FBI) upon being informed that women are/were subjected to sexual violence by a similarly situated sexual predator to Lawrence Gerard Nassar? 3) Has your local/state/federal government ever had conversations about the DOJ (OIG) July 2021 report dealing with Lawrence Gerard Nassar? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 4) Has your local/state/federal government ever discussed the positive precedent that would have been set if criminal charges had been filed against Michael Langeman and W. Jay Abbott for their handling of the Lawrence Gerard Nassar case? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 5) Has your local/state/federal government ever discussed the systemic culture of sexual harassment that exist within the FBI and which has previously been exposed by the Associated Press? If yes, will you disclose those records? 6) Is there a mechanism by which your MICHAEL AYELE (A.K.A) W 8
REQUEST FOR RECORDS 03/03/2023 local/state government official can be reported and held accountable in the event they intentionally and deliberately botch a sexual abuse case brought forward by a woman (above the age of 18) and/or a girl (below the age of 18)? If yes, will you provide records about that mechanism and the discussions you have had about the real possibility of local/state government agencies botching a sexual abuse case brought forward by a woman (above the age of 18) and/or a girl (below the age of 18)? 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 city/county/state government as well as sports federations such USA Gymnastics and the U.S Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC); [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. 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 Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist Audio-Visual Media Analyst Anti-Propaganda Journalist MICHAEL AYELE (A.K.A) W 9
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
