In the Matter of Eva Lopez V City Of New York - #Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W

2. CITY OF NEW YORK CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BOARD 2 Lafayette Street, Suite 1010 New York, New York 10007 (212) 442-1400; (212) 437-0705 (Fax) www.nyc.gov/ethics @NYCCOIB April 22, 2022 Fernando A. Bohorquez Jr. Acting Chair Wayne G. Hawley Board Member Ifeoma Ike Board Member Georgia M. Pestana Board Member ____________ Carolyn Lisa Miller Executive Director Ethan A. Carrier General Counsel Jeffrey Tremblay Director of Enforcement Katherine J. Miller Director of Annual Disclosure & Special Counsel Alex Kipp Director of Education & Engagement Varuni Bhagwant Director of Administration Derick Yu Director of Information Technology VIA E-MAIL W (Michael Ayele) waacl13@gmail.com Dear W: This is in response to your FOIL request to the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board (the “Board”), received April 15, 2022, for: “[1] your discussions about Eva Lopez as a Black/African American woman who identifies as an independent artist on her Instagram account; [2] your discussions about Eva Lopez as a Black/African American woman who has over 870,000 (eight hundred and seventy thousand) followers on Instagram; [3] your discussions about Eva Lopez as a Black/African American woman who was informed that her image, her appearance and her likeness were being used by the New York Police Department (NYPD) in a very inappropriate manner on August 16th 2021; [4] your discussions about Eva Lopez as a Black/African American woman who has reached out to the NYPD on August 16th 2021 for the purpose of informing them that they were using her image, her appearance and her likeness in a very inappropriate manner; [5] your discussions about the NYPD as a law-enforcement agency, which doesn’t deny that the image of Eva Lopez has been used in a very inappropriate manner on social networks including but not limited to Facebook and Instagram; [6] your discussions about the NYPD as a law enforcement agency, which has removed the misleading images they had posted of Eva Lopez from their Facebook page and other websites they have control of; [7] your discussions about Eva Lopez as a Black/African American woman who has experienced difficulty convincing the American public that she didn’t commit grand larceny even after the NYPD corroborated that she hadn’t; [8] your discussions about Eva Lopez as a Black/African American woman who experienced emotional distress as a direct consequence of the NYPD using her image, her appearance and her likeness in a misleading manner; [9] the complaint filed by Eva Lopez with the Manhattan Supreme Court against the NYPD; [10] the policy in use by your police/sheriff departments on removing misleading images from their social network accounts and other websites; [11] your discussions about the uphill battle faced by Black/African American people in lawsuits they file for emotional distress if the courts require for them to show receipt of attendance in therapeutic sessions held by a psychologist and/or a psychiatrist; [12] your communications about the need for courtrooms to consider the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) studies, which indicate that there exist racial/ethnic differences in physician distrust; [13] your discussions about the HHS as a federal agency, which recognizes

3. that Blacks and Hispanics have ‘higher levels of physician distrust than (…) Whites;’ [14] your discussions about the October 2020 poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Undefeated finding that 7 in 10 people of African descent believed the U.S healthcare system to be infected by racism; [15] your discussions about the October 2020 poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Undefeated finding that ‘African Americans are doubtful about the promise of a coronavirus vaccine;’ [16] the discussions held between your office and racial minorities about the pseudoscientific medical condition of ‘drapetomania’ for the purpose of bolstering public confidence in your community; [17] the discussions held between your office and racial minorities about the unethical Tuskegee syphilis study for the purpose of bolstering public confidence in your community; [18] the discussions held between your office and racial minorities about putting the legacies of Margaret Sanger and J. Marion Sims into appropriate American history context for the purpose of bolstering public confidence in your community; [19] your discussions about Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black man who had on December 31st 2017 over 750,000 (seven hundred and fifty thousand) views on his Google profile for his email account mbayelm13@gmail.com; [20] your discussions about Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black man who has made clear to the U.S District Court for the District of Maryland that he doesn’t wish for his image, his appearance and likeness to be associated with several pseudoscientific medical reports written about him in 2015 and 2016; [21] your discussions about the efforts of the U.S District Court for the District of Maryland to create links with Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W since he has informed them that he doesn’t wish for his image, his appearance and likeness to be associated with pseudoscientific medical reports written about him in 2015 and 2016; [22] any outside pressure exerted on your office either by a representative of (i) the U.S government, (ii) a non-profit organization and/or (iii) a for-profit organization encouraging you to behave towards Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W in a manner that is not consistent with the policies/procedures adopted by your office.” The Board does not have any responsive documents. Should you wish to appeal this determination, you must send written notice within thirty days to Carolyn Lisa Miller, Records Appeals Officer, at FOIL@coib.nyc.gov. Very truly yours, Katherine J. Miller Records Access Officer cc: Carolyn Lisa Miller

4. THECITYOFNEWYORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 CHURCH STREET NEW YORK, NY 10007 KATHRYN M. CONWAY Senior Counsel kaconway@law.nyc.gov HON. SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX Corporation Counsel April 20, 2022 By Email Michael A. Ayele Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL) waacl13@gmail.com FOIL-2022-025-00097 Re: Freedom of Information Law Request Dear Mr. Ayele: This letter is in response to your request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law by electronic mail dated April 15, 2022, made via the OpenRecords Portal and addressed to the New York City Law Department, in which you request certain records regarding “Eva Lopez.” With regard to the portion of your request labelled as “[9],” seeking a copy of the “complaint filed by Evan Lopez with the Manhattan Supreme Court against the NYPD,” you are herein granted access to the disclosable responsive records associated with your request. With regard to the portions of your request labelled as “[1]” through “[8]” and “[10]” through “[22],” our Office does not maintain the requested records in a manner that allows us to search for them. Accordingly, these portions of your request are denied.

5. You may appeal this determination in writing within thirty days by addressing your appeal to Stephen Louis, Records Appeals Officer, New York City Law Department, 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007. Sincerely, /S/ Kathryn M. Conway Records Access Officer

6. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2022 04:17 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 152069/2022 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022 Index No.: SUMMONS Plaintiff designates New York County as the place of trial. The basis of venue is: Location of the incident Ninth Precinct, located at 321 East 5 Street New York, NY, 10003 County of New York SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------X EVA LOPEZ, -against- CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, and KEVIN DWYER, individually and in his official capacity, ----------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, Defendants. To the above named Defendants: You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action, and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance on the Plaintiff' attorneys within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, where service is made by delivery upon you personally within the state, or, within 30 days after completion of service where service is made in any other manner. In case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: New York, New York March 9, 2022 MARK DAVID SHIRIAN P.C. By: _______________________________________ MARK D. SHIRIAN, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ 228 East 45th Street - Suite 1700-B New York, New York 10017 Tel.: (212) 931-6530 Fax: (212) 898-0163 Email: mshirian@shirianpc.com 1 of 13

7. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2022 04:17 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 152069/2022 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022 To: CITY OF NEW YORK Corporation Counsel 100 Church St., 5th Fl. New York, NY 10007 NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT Corporation Counsel 100 Church St., 5th Fl. New York, NY 10007 KEVIN DWYER, individually and in his official capacity, 321 East 5 Street New York, NY, 10003 2 of 13

8. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2022 04:17 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 152069/2022 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------X EVA LOPEZ, -against- CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, and KEVIN DWYER, individually and in his official capacity, ----------------------------------------------------------------------X Index No.: Date Purchased: VERIFIED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, EVA LOPEZ, by her attorneys, MARK DAVID SHIRIAN P.C., complaining of the Defendants,CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, and KEVIN DWYER, individually and in his official capacity, (collectively, “defendants”), respectfully allege, upon information and belief that: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a civil action in which Plaintiff seek relief for the violation of her rights secured by the laws of the State of New York and the New York State Constitution. 2. The claims arise from an incident in which Defendants subjected Plaintiff to inter alia Defamation Per Se and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. 3. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages (special, compensatory, and punitive) against Defendants and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. VENUE 4. Venue is proper in this Court as Defendant New York City has offices, conducts business, and can be found in New York County, and the causes of action arose and occurred in New York 3 of 13

9. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2022 04:17 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 152069/2022 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022 County. PARTIES Plaintiff Ms. Eva Lopez (“Ms. Lopez”) is a United States citizen and at the time of the 5. incident herein resided in the County of Queens, City and State of New York. 6. Defendant, CITY OF NEW YORK, is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. 7. That at all of the times hereinafter mentioned, and upon information and belief, the defendant, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, was a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the Laws of the State of New York. Detective KEVIN DWYER(“Detective Kevin Dwyer”) at all times here relevant was and 8. is a member of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) and is sued in their individual and professional capacities. 9. At all times mentioned, Defendants were acting under color of state law, under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, and customs and usages of the City of New York. NOTICE OF CLAIM 10. In accordance with General Municipal Law Section 50-e and within ninety days of the events giving rise to these claims, Plaintiff filed a written Notice of Claim with the New York City Office of the Comptroller. 11. That on August 26, 2021, EVA LOPEZ, herein duly presented in writing to the defendants, the claim for damages herein set forth and upon which this action is founded and that said claim was presented for adjustment. 4 of 13

10. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2022 04:17 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 152069/2022 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022 12. On December 2, 2021, Plaintiff appeared for a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing. 13. That more than thirty days have elapsed since the hearing and New York City has failed to settle and refused to make an adjustment of any claim herein set forth. 14. That all conditions precedent to the bringing of this action has been complied with. 15. That their action was commenced within one year and ninety (90) days after the accrual of the cause of action herein. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 16. Ms. Lopez is a 31-year old female. 17. On or about August 16, 2021, Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ was in a car after getting off of an airplane with Jonathan Ruiz, her boyfriend. 18. Jonathan Ruiz received a message from his friend who said he saw Plaintiff, EVA LOPEZ on the Internet in a wanted sign (hereinafter "Wanted Sign") issued by the NYPD and asked whether it is true. 19. The Wanted Sign, issued by Defendant, NYPD Detective Kevin Dwyer, used a photograph of Plaintiff Eva Lopez, believed to be taken from her social media page, claiming that she was wanted for Grand Larceny. 20. Specifically, the aforementioned wanted sign used a photograph image of Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ on top of the following message: -continued on the following page- 5 of 13

11. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2022 04:17 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 152069/2022 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022 POUcEDEPARTREiMT| CITV OFNEW VORK[Wanied Flyer #68924596 | CIrvOFNEW YORK WANTED FORGRANDLARCENY PERPETRATOR-PROBABLE CAUSETO ARREST DETECTWE BUREAU{POUcE DEPARTMENT The 9th Precinct Detective Squad laattemptingtoidentify the subject pictured above for Grand Larceny. On August 3,2021 the complainants roommate didreplyto an online escort advertleement and while the subject was at his apartment at 1782nd Avenue the subject did remove complainants Rolex watch valued at $13000and a Chase credit card without permission orauthority to do so. Anyonewit1informationregardingthe abovesubject, pleasenottyDet. KEVINDWYER at 212-477-7809 OR DetecoveBoroughManhattanSouthat 212-477-7447 Investigator: DelKEVIN OWVER Command Assigned: 23e-9 DET SQUAD Cases 20201ses Complaint Report# 2021 cosmart Ninth for "The Precinct Detective Squad is to the subject pictured above attempting complainants identify roommate an online Grand Larceny. August the did to escort 3, 2021, reply advertisement and while the subject was at his apartment at 178 2nd the subject did Avenue, Rolex watch remove complainants valued at $13,000.00 and Chase credit card without 2021-009- permission of to do so (Case No.: Complaint Report No.: 2021-1896; 03371)." authority Upon information sign Investigator 21. and the aforementioned wanted was issued belief, by Kevin Dwyer of Ninth in of Det. the Precinct Detective his as a detective Squad., acting capacity NYPD. the EVA When LOPEZ her 22. and boyfriend first saw the aforementioned wanted sign, they both both thought that it was photo-shopped and were shocked. Lopez several with 23. Ms. was texted different people that regard to the Wanted by day Sign. 6 of 13

12. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2022 04:17 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 152069/2022 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022 24. Ms. Lopez was shocked. 25. Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ then reposted the aforementioned wanted sign on her personal Instagram page to clear up her innocence and the fact that the wanted posted should not have been directed at her. 26. After a short moment, friends of Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ started to call her and asked if she was OK. 27. Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ told her friends that it was just a fake story. However, a manager from Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ’s employer named Joelle called Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ, and he informed her that the aforementioned wanted sign from the NYPD might actually be real and that she should call the number indicated in the wanted sign. 28. On or about August 16, 2021, at approximately 6:04 PM, Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ. called Detective Dwyer. 29. Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ explained that she was the individual in the photograph and thought that this was fake and that she wanted to make sure that she’s not in trouble. 30. Detective Dwyer confirmed that he did think it was Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ at first because the two victims showed them pictures of her and that it was for sure Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ. 31. Detective Dwyer reiterated that they conducted an investigation and found a surveillance video from the building and that although the female perpetrator did look similar to Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ, the female perpetrator had a sleeve tattoo on her arm, but Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ does not. 32. Detective Dwyer knew it was an issue before she called and the aforementioned wanted sign had already been taken down on social media, including Facebook and other NYPD websites. 7 of 13

13. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2022 04:17 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 152069/2022 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022 33. Ms. Lopez had absolutely nothing to do with any grand larceny. 34. Detective Kevin Dwyer acknowledged that she was not involved in any grand larceny. 35. However, the aforementioned wanted sign with Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ photograph was disseminated by many media outlets and social media pages blogs, and many family and friends contacted Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ regarding the aforementioned wanted sign. 36. Defendants made a false statement charging Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ with a serious crime. 37. Defendants published and continue to publish the false statement to third parties without authorization or privilege. 38. Defendants were at fault for their actions. Defendants' actions were intentional, or at least negligent. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendants' actions in an amount no less than $30 million dollars. 39. Plaintiff brings this action for defamation per se, libel, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent hiring, supervision, retention and respondeat superior. 40. Ms. Lopez was extremely upset and continues to be upset by the presence of her picture on the Wanted Sign. This incident has damaged Ms. Lopez’ personal reputation in her neighborhood and has 41. damaged her professional reputation in her employment. 42. Ms. Lopez had to report the incident to her supervisor at her employment. 43. This incident has caused and continues to cause Ms. Lopez severe mental anguish and emotional distress. Ms. Lopez was unable to sleep for weeks after the incident. 8 of 13

14. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2022 04:17 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 152069/2022 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022 AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION PER SE AGAINST DEFENDANTS, CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND KEVIN DWYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY 44. Plaintiff repeats and realleges by reference each and every allegation contained in the above stated paragraphs, and incorporates the same herein as though fully set forth. 45. Defendants made a false statement charging Plaintiff with a serious crime. 46. Defendants published and continue to publish the false statement to third parties without authorization or privilege. 47. Defendants were at fault for their actions. Defendants’ actions were intentional, or at least negligent. 48. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendants’ actions in an amount believed to equal or 49. exceed the jurisdictional limit of this Court. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST DEFENDANTS, CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND KEVIN DWYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY 50. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the preceding allegations of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. Defendants’ conduct towards Plaintiff was negligent, unreasonable, and so extreme in 51. degree and outrageous in character as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency. Defendants’ conduct caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress. 52. 53. Defendants knew, or should have known, that such distress was substantially certain to occur as a result of their negligent conduct. Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ conduct in an amount believed to 54. equal or exceed the jurisdictional limit of this Court. 9 of 13

15. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2022 04:17 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 152069/2022 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022 AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR AGAINST DEFENDANTS, CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND KEVIN DWYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY 55. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the preceding allegations of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 56. Detective Kevin Dwyer was acting in his capacity as an officer of the NYPD when his actions damaged Plaintiff. 57. New York City, as the employer of Detective Kevin Dwyer, is vicariously liable for the damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the unlawful and wrongful acts of Detective Kevin Dwyer. Plaintiff has been damaged a result of Defendants’ actions in an amount believed to equal 58. or exceed the jurisdictional limit of this court. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS, CITY OF NEW YORK and THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT 59. Plaintiff repeats and realleges by reference each and every allegation contained herein. 60. That the defendants, CITY OF NEW YORK AND THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, were negligent in its hiring and training practices of its police detectives: in that it retained detectives not fit by temperament or personality to be detectives; in failing to fire detectives not fit for their position; in failing to instruct detectives as to the civil rights of defendants; in the malicious treatment of plaintiff; and in failing to avoid the occurrence although there was an opportunity to do so. As a result of those breaches, which were the proximate causes of Plaintiff’s injury, 61. Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ, suffered harm and damages. 10 of 13

16. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2022 04:17 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 152069/2022 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022 62. Solely as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff demands judgment for negligence against the defendants CITY OF NEW YORK AND THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all other courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction, including attorney’s fees, and for such other and further relief that this Court deems just and equitable. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, EVA LOPEZ demands judgment against the Defendants together with costs and disbursements as follows: In favor of Plaintiff in an amount to be determined by a jury, but at least equal to or exceeding the jurisdictional requirement for each of Plaintiff’s causes of action; Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury; Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements of this action; And such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: New York, New York March 9, 2022 MARK DAVID SHIRIAN P.C. By: _______________________________________ MARK D. SHIRIAN, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ 228 East 45th Street - Suite 1700-B New York, New York 10017 Tel.: (212) 931-6530 Fax: (212) 898-0163 Email: mshirian@shirianpc.com 11 of 13

17. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2022 04:17 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 152069/2022 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022 ATTORNEY’S VERIFICATION BY AFFIMRATION MARK D. SHIRIAN, affirms and says: 1. I am a member at the firm of MARK DAVID SHIRIAN P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ. 2. I make this verification because Plaintiff resides in Queens County, New York, a county other than New York County, New York, in which my office is located. 3. I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and it is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, after reasonable inquiry. Dated: New York, NY March 9, 2022 __________________________________ MARK D. SHIRIAN 12 of 13

18. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2022 04:17 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 152069/2022 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK EVA LOPEZ, -against- CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, and KEVIN DWYER, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants. SUMMONS & VERIFIED COMPLAINT Index No. Plaintiff, MARKDAVIDSHIRIANP.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff EVA LOPEZ 228 East 45th Street - Suite 1700-B New York, New York 10017 Tel.: (212) 931-6530 TO: Service of a copy of the within Dated: _________________________________________________________ CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the presentation of SUMMONS & VERIFIED COMPLAINT and the contentions therein are not frivolous as defined in Subsection (c) of Section 130-1.1 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator (22NYCRR). Dated: New York, New York March 9, 2022 is hereby admitted. Attorneys for ___________________ Mark D. Shirian, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff As Designated Above 13 of 13

19. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 04/15/2022 W (AACL) Michael A. Ayele P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia E-mail: waacl13@gmail.com ; waacl1313@gmail.com ; waacl42913@gmail.com Date.: April 15th 2022 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 offices.i The bases for this records request are [1] the complaint filed by Eva Lopez in the Manhattan Supreme Court against the New York Police Department (NYPD) for defamation, libel as well as slander ii and [2] the complaint filed by Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W against My Montgomery County Media for defamation, libel and slander in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. iii I) Requested Records What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are all records within your possession detailing [1] your discussions about Eva Lopez as a Black/African American woman who identifies as an independent artist on her Instagram account; [2] your discussions about Eva Lopez as a Black/African American woman who has over 870,000 (eight hundred and seventy thousand) followers on Instagram;iv [3] your discussions about Eva Lopez as a Black/African American woman who was informed that her image, her appearance and her likeness were being used by the New York Police Department (NYPD) in a very inappropriate manner on August 16th 2021; [4] your discussions about Eva Lopez as a Black/African American woman who has reached out to the NYPD on August 16th 2021 for the purpose of informing them that they were using her image, her appearance and her likeness in a very inappropriate manner; [5] your discussions about the NYPD as a law-enforcement agency, which doesn’t deny that the image of Eva Lopez has been used in a very inappropriate manner on social networks including but not limited to Facebook and Instagram; [6] your discussions about the NYPD as a law enforcement agency, which has removed the misleading images they had posted of Eva Lopez from their Facebook page and other websites they have control of; [7] your discussions about Eva Lopez as a Black/African American woman who has experienced difficulty convincing the American public that she didn’t commit grand larceny even after the NYPD corroborated that she hadn’t; [8] your discussions about Eva Lopez as a Black/African American woman who experienced emotional distress as a direct consequence of the NYPD using her image, her appearance and her likeness in a misleading manner;v [9] the complaint filed by Eva Lopez with the Manhattan Supreme W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 1

20. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 04/15/2022 Court against the NYPD; [10] the policy in use by your police/sheriff departments on removing misleading images from their social network accounts and other websites; [11] your discussions about the uphill battle faced by Black/African American people in lawsuits they file for emotional distress if the courts require for them to show receipt of attendance in therapeutic sessions held by a psychologist and/or a psychiatrist; [12] your communications about the need for courtrooms to consider the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) studies, which indicate that there exist racial/ethnic differences in physician distrust; [13] your discussions about the HHS as a federal agency, which recognizes that Blacks and Hispanics have “higher levels of physician distrust than (…) Whites;”vi [14] your discussions about the October 2020 poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Undefeated finding that 7 in 10 people of African descent believed the U.S healthcare system to be infected by racism; [15] your discussions about the October 2020 poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Undefeated finding that “African Americans are doubtful about the promise of a coronavirus vaccine;” vii [16] the discussions held between your office and racial minorities about the pseudoscientific medical condition of “drapetomania” viii for the purpose of bolstering public confidence in your community; [17] the discussions held between your office and racial minorities about the unethical Tuskegee syphilis study ix for the purpose of bolstering public confidence in your community; [18] the discussions held between your office and racial minorities about putting the legacies of Margaret Sanger x and J. Marion Sims xi into appropriate American history context for the purpose of bolstering public confidence in your community; [19] your discussions about Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black man who had on December 31st 2017 over 750,000 (seven hundred and fifty thousand) views on his Google profile for his email account mbayelm13@gmail.com ; [20] your discussions about Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black man who has made clear to the U.S District Court for the District of Maryland that he doesn’t wish for his image, his appearance and likeness to be associated with several pseudoscientific medical reports written about him in 2015 and 2016; [21] your discussions about the efforts of the U.S District Court for the District of Maryland to create links with Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W since he has informed them that he doesn’t wish for his image, his appearance and likeness to be associated with pseudoscientific medical reports written about him in 2015 and 2016; [22] any outside pressure exerted on your office either by a representative of (i) the U.S government, (ii) a non-profit organization and/or (iii) a for-profit organization encouraging you to behave towards Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W in a manner that is not consistent with the policies/procedures adopted by your office. II) Request for a Fee Waiver and Expedited Processing The requested records have demonstrated that [1] Eva Lopez is a Black/African American who has over 870,000 followers on Instagram (as of this writing dated April 15th 2022); [2] the image, the appearance and the likeness of Eva Lopez were being used by the New York Police Department (NYPD) in a very inappropriate manner by linking her on the Internet to crimes she W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 2

21. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 04/15/2022 hasn’t committed; [3] Eva Lopez is a Black/African American woman who has denied any involvement in the events of August 03rd 2021, which led the NYPD to posting images that linked Eva Lopez to grand theft and prostitution; [4] Eva Lopez (through her legal representative) has filed a complaint with the Manhattan Supreme Court on March 09th 2022 for defamation, libel and slander; [5] Eva Lopez (through her legal representative) has filed a complaint with the Manhattan Supreme Court on March 09th 2022 for experiencing emotional distress as a direct consequence of the misleading posters published about her by the NYPD; [6] Black/African American people tend not to consult psychiatrists/psychologists even after experiencing emotional distress; [7] Black/African American people are suspicious of the U.S health care system because of pseudoscientific medical conditions such as “drapetomania;” [8] Black/African American people are suspicious of the U.S health care system because their mental health is often very unjustly linked to “schizophrenia;” [9] Black/African American people are suspicious of the U.S health care system because of unethical medical experiments such as the Tuskegee syphilis study; [10] Black/African American people are suspicious of the U.S health care system because the legacies of Margaret Sanger and J. Marion Sims have not been put into appropriate American history context; [11] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man who had on December 31st 2017 over 750,000 views on his Google profile for his email account mbayelm13@gmail.com; [12] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man who has informed the U.S District Court for the District of Maryland that he doesn’t wish to be associated with pseudoscientific medical reports written about him in 2015 and 2016 (some of which, he has submitted to them); [13] the U.S District Court for the District of Maryland has exerted a non-negligible amount of effort to link itself with the image, the appearance and the likeness of Michael A. Ayele since he has informed them that he doesn’t wish to be associated with the pseudoscientific medical reports written about him in 2015 and 2016 (some of which he has submitted to them); [14] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man who has opted not to join social networks for personal reasons despite significant outside pressure exerted on him by entities such as California State University (Fullerton), who have made failed efforts to control his image, his appearance and his likeness on the Internet; [15] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W has filed a complaint with the Department of Education (DoED) against California State University (Fullerton) for publishing false claims, which in reality constitute racketeering; [16] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W has filed a complaint with the Department of Education (DoED) against California State University (Fullerton) instead of engaging with them in a tit for tat on social networks; xii [17] the Department of Education (DoED) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have confirmed to Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that California State University (Fullerton) never reached out to them for the purpose of inquiring about their obligations pursuant to the Jeanne Clery Act; [18] the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have confirmed to Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that California State University (Fullerton) never reached out to them for the purpose of inquiring about their obligations when publishing a request submitted pursuant to the Jeanne Clery Act. xiii In my judgment, the facts that I have enumerated above are not the sort to bolster public confidence in the activities of the U.S government. The core issues presented in this records W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 3

22. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 04/15/2022 request are the following. 1) What is the policy adopted by your police/sheriff department on removing the image, the appearance and the likeness of a person from their websites and their social network accounts for the purpose of not creating circumstances, which could harm the reputation and social standing of a person? 2) Have your offices previously reached out to racial minorities in the U.S.A to discuss (i) the pseudoscientific medical condition of “drapetomania;” (ii) the history behind the mental health symptom of “schizophrenia;” (iii) the unethical medical experiments of the Tuskegee syphilis study; (iv) what should be the legacies of Margaret Sanger and J. Marion Sims? If yes, will you promptly disclose the content of the discussions you have held? 3) Were any outside pressure exerted on your office either by a representative of (i) the U.S government, (ii) a non-profit organization and/or (iii) a for-profit organization encouraging you to behave towards Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W in a manner that is not consistent with the policies/procedures adopted by your office? In conclusion to my request for a fee waiver and expedited processing, I would like to reiterate that the records I have asked to be promptly disclosed [1] puts into question the government’s integrity and adversely impacts public confidence about the manner in which women and racial minorities are treated; [2] identifies operations and activities of the U.S federal, local and state governments possibly in concert with non-profit and for-profit organization; [3] are meaningfully informative about government operations or activities in order to be “likely to contribute” to and increase public understanding of those operations. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that all the statements I have made are to the best of my knowledge true and accurate. Be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance. Respectfully submitted: W (AACL) Michael A. Ayele Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist Audio-Visual Media Analyst Anti-Propaganda Journalist W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 4

23. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 04/15/2022 Work Cited i Please be advised that I have previously disseminated a vast number of documents obtained through records request via Archive.org, Scribd.com, Medium.com and YouTube.com. These documents have been made available to the public at no financial expense to them. As a member 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 through the means I have mentioned above or other ones. 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 The New York City Police Department is being sued for $30 million, after erroneously using a woman’s face on a “wanted” poster on social media. The poster wrongly used an image of the Instagram model and influencer in a notice about an escort service worker suspected of theft. According to lawsuit documents obtained by Atlanta Black Star, Eva Lopez, 31, filed her complaint with the Manhattan Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 9, against the NYPD after she was mistakenly featured in a “wanted” poster. The woman is suing for $30 million in damages, claiming she has experienced “emotional distress” as a result of the error. Also named in the claim is the city, and a police detective, who knew before she contacted him that she was not the suspect for the crime and made no public statement rectifying the photo mix-up, Lopez says in her legal claim. The headline on the flyer read, “Wanted for Grand Larceny. Perpetrator—probable cause to arrest” and detailed the alleged crime. Directly under the red bolded-wanted headline is a picture of Lopez posing with a fuchsia tube top and multi-colored tights. “The 9th Precinct Detective Squad is attempting to identify the subject pictured above for Grand Larceny. On August 3, 2021, the complainant’s roommate did reply to an online escort advertisement and while the subject was in his apartment at 178 2nd Avenue the subject did remove complainants Rolex watch valued at $13000 and a Chase credit card without permission or authority to do so,” the copy of the flyer read before directing the public to Detective Kevin Dwyer. Lopez was not in Manhattan at the time of the crime, but was in Queens. She states the first time she was made aware of the poster was when her boyfriend notified her on Aug. 16. According to the lawsuit, she and her boyfriend believed the “sign” was “photoshopped.” The Daily News reports Lopez said, “I thought it was something fake. I really couldn’t believe the police would put me on a wanted poster.” However, Joelle, her employer, suggested that she reach out to the officer and inform him of the mistake. When she called Dwyer, the lawsuit states, he shared with her that he already knew the department featured the wrong woman. The lawsuit states, “Detective Dwyer confirmed that he did think it was plaintiff Eva Lopez at first because the two victims showed them pictures of her and that it was for sure Plaintiff Eva Lopez.” W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 5

24. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 04/15/2022 Then he “reiterated that [NYPD] conducted an investigation and found a surveillance video from the building and that although the female perpetrator did look similar”Lopez, “the female perpetrator had a sleeve tattoo on her arm” and Lopez “does not.” The department apparently sought to remove the poster from its social media and other websites. By the time the decision to remove the alert was made, it had been shared all over the internet, Lopez claims. Lopez, who personally shared the poster to her 862,000 followers on Instagram to say it was fake, said, “It was already spread around on social media. … It was still being passed around, still being talked about, still making me look like a thief and a prostitute.” “On Facebook, the [wanted poster] got shared over thousands of times — 10,000, 20,000 times. Then on Instagram a lot of blog sites that have millions of followers, they posted it as well,” she continued. Lopez said that her agent did a background check on her and several people at her job were gossiping behind her back about the validity of the flyer. “It was just really, really embarrassing, not only for me but for my family as well,” the woman revealed. Her attorney Mark Shirian wrote in the filing, “for defamation per se, libel, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress,” among other things.Shirian said in an interview that “The NYPD should commit to more thorough investigations before haphazardly accusing and identifying innocent people of fantastic lies and brazen crimes.” The attorney suspects that the escort may have used some of her flicks from social media as her own, catfishing potential clients. “Ms. Lopez was extremely upset and continues to be upset by the presence of her picture on the Wanted Sign,” the lawsuit read in part. “This incident has damaged Ms. Lopez'[s] personal reputation in her neighborhood and has damaged her professional reputation in her employment.” NYPD Sued for $30M for Using Instagram Influencer’s Image on Wanted Poster That Implied She Works in World’s Oldest Profession. Atlanta Black Star.: https://atlantablackstar.com/2022/03/17/nypd- sued-for-30m-for-using-instagram-influencers-image-on-wanted-poster-that-implied-she-works- in-worlds-oldest-profession/ iii Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W v My Montgomery County Media et al. Pacer.: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/20074632/Ayele_v_My_Montgomery_County_Medi a_et_al iv Eva Lopez on Instagram.: https://www.instagram.com/eva_lo_dimelo/ vDwyer told Lopez the wanted poster had already been taken down from the department’s Facebook page and other web sites, she said. The real perpetrator had a tattoo sleeve, the detective said. Lopez doesn’t. But the damage was done. “It was already spread around on social media. … It was still being passed around, still being talked about, still making me look like a thief and a prostitute,” Lopez told The Post. The image in the wanted poster showed her in a low cut, hot pink tube top, with a thick gold necklace, bright, multi-colored leggings and high heels. “Wanted for Grand Larceny,” it said. “Perpetrator —probable cause to arrest.” The poster sought information on an Aug. 3 theft from an East Village apartment, where a man had booked an W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 6

25. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 04/15/2022 escort online, only to have the escort steal a $13,000 Rolex and Chase credit card of his roommate, cops said. Lopez was in Queens on Aug. 3, she said, not in Manhattan. The picture had been taken a month or two earlier, as she headed to a friend’s birthday party, she added. The detective told her that the victims showed police pictures of Lopez, who has 862,000 Instagram followers and works as a fashion influencer as well as a bartender at a club in Queens, she claimed in the Manhattan Supreme Court lawsuit. “On Facebook, the [wanted poster] got shared over thousands of times — 10,000, 20,000 times. Then on Instagram a lot of blog sites that have millions of followers, they posted it as well,” Lopez lamented. Lopez proclaimed her innocence on her own Instagram page, to no avail. “People didn’t think I was being honest,” she said. “It was just really, really embarrassing, not only for me but for my family as well.” Lopez said her rep nosedived after the incident, with some co-workers gossiping about her. “I just really wantpeople to know that’s not me, in any way, shape or form. The girl has nothing to do with me,” she said.Woman sues for $30M after NYPD puts her pic on ‘wanted’ poster. New York Post.: https://nypost.com/2022/03/12/woman-sues-after-nypd-puts-her-pic-on- wanted-poster/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab viTrust has long been recognized as a fundamental component of the physician–patient relationship. In health care, trust in physicians is generally defined as the belief that the physician will act in your best interest and arises from perceptions of the physician’s values (including fidelity and honesty) and competence. Theoretically, trust is central to a physician– patient relationship because of the risk and uncertainty inherent in medical care.7 This theoretical framework is supported by studies demonstrating the relationship between physician trust and adherence to treatment recommendations, short-term symptom resolution, and overall health status. It is widely believed that trust has declined over the past 40 years in most segments of US society, including health care. This decline in health care–related trust is attributed to the growth of managed care and for-profit health care, disclosures of prior episodes of unethical medical research, growing public access to medical information, and publicity surrounding medical errors, malpractice, and fraud and abuse within the medical system. Adding to concerns about the overall decline in trust is the recognition that distrust may be particularly prevalent among racial and ethnic minority groups. This recognition has centered on the Black population because of the history of adverse treatment of Blacks by the medical system, dating back to slave experimentation and including the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and current evidence of racial disparities in health care. However, issues such as discrimination that are likely to increase distrust in the Black community may also apply to other disadvantaged minority populations, such as the Hispanic population. Racial/Ethnic Differences in Physician Distrust in the United States. National Institute of Health. Department of Health and Human W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 7

26. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 04/15/2022 Services (HHS).: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913079/ vii A new nationwide poll by The Undefeated and the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) found that 7 in 10 African Americans believe that people are treated unfairly based on race or ethnicity when they seek medical care. (…) While a sizable minority of Americans of all races are deeply skeptical of the nation’s byzantine health care system, the feeling is more pronounced in the Black community. Fifty-five percent of African Americans said they distrust it. (…) Despite the horrific toll of the pandemic, African Americans are doubtful about the promise of a coronavirus vaccine that public health officials hope to begin deploying in the coming months. Just half of African Americans surveyed said they would be interested in taking a vaccine, even if it were determined to be safe and were provided at no cost. By comparison, 2 in 3 white people said they would definitely or probably get vaccinated, as did 6 in 10 Hispanics. The vast majority of African Americans who said they would not take a coronavirus vaccine did not think that it would be properly tested, distributed fairly or developed with the needs of Black people in mind. New poll shows Black Americans see a racist health care system setting the stage for pandemic’s impact.Andscape.: https://andscape.com/features/new-poll-shows-black-americans-see-a-racist- health-care-system-setting-the-stage-for-pandemics-impact/ viiiIn the Antebellum period, blacks were forced to participate in dissections and medical examinations. Dead black bodies, robbed from their graves, were a continuous source of surgical and anatomical experimentation. The psychiatric diagnosis of drapetomania, or “runaway slave syndrome,” was created to diagnose and pathologize African slaves who fled their vicious slave owners. To run away from slavery was considered a disease. The treatment was often amputation of extremities. Later during Reconstruction Era, white American doctors argued that former slaves would not thrive in a free society because their minds could not cope psychologically with freedom. In the Civil Rights era, psychiatrists used the concept of schizophrenia to portray black activists as violent, hostile, and paranoid because they threatened the racist status quo. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, where hundreds of black men, without their consent, were intentionally administered syphilis and denied treatment, became the very embodiment of the way medicine and medical research was weaponized against African Americans. Scholars have written for decades about the Tuskegee experiments symbolizing the racisms embedded in medicine and laying the foundation for the black communities distrust of physicians and research. Many scholars agree that although the black distrust of the health system started way before Tuskegee, this study has been become the central metaphor and focal point to explain black distrust in medicine and public health. Black Americans don’t trust our healthcare system –here’s why. The Hill.: https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/347780-black- americans-dont-have-trust-in-our-healthcare-system/ W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 8

27. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 04/15/2022 ixBlack people were used as medical research subjects during slavery. It was long before medical ethics developed as a discipline and “Black bodies often found their way to dissecting tables, operating amphitheaters, classroom or bedside demonstrations, and experimental facilities,” according to a 1984 paper by Todd L. Savitt, a professor at East Carolina University’s College of Medicine. That kind of medical exploitation (which sometimes included white people, too) continued for more than a century. Most famously, the Tuskegee syphilis study began in 1932 with the goal of tracking the damage the disease does to the human body. Without informed consent, the study enrolled 600 Black men, including 399 who had syphilis. The men were told they were being treated for “bad blood,” but they did not receive any treatment for their illness — not even after penicillin was found to cure syphilis in the mid-1940s. The study did not end until it was exposed to the press in 1972, and has gone down as one of the nation’s most egregious examples of medical racism. But disparate treatment did not end there. Researchers have documented many ways that Black patients are treated differently from white patients. In 2002, the Institute of Medicine’s groundbreaking report, Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care, found higher rates of diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and HIV, among Black and other people of color. Yet, minority patients were less likely to receive critical medical interventions such as bypass surgery or antiretroviral therapy. At the same time, people of color were more likely to receive extremely invasive treatments, such as amputations. Black Americans see a health-care system infected by racism, new poll shows. National Geographic.: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/black-americans-see-health-care-system- infected-racism-new-poll-shows x It was 100 years ago—on Oct. 16, 1916—that Margaret Sanger opened the first birth- control clinic in the United States. An advocate for women’s reproductive rights who was also a vocal eugenics enthusiast, Margaret Sanger leaves a complicated legacy — and one that conservatives have periodically leveraged into sweeping attacks on the organization she helped found: Planned Parenthood. (…) Historians and scholars who’ve examined Sanger’s correspondence, as Salon reported in 2011, challenge those who call the activist racist. Much of the controversy stems from a 1939 letter in which Sanger outlined her plan to reach out to black leaders — specifically ministers — to help dispel community suspicions about the family planning clinics she was opening in the South. “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members,” she wrote. It was, as the Washington Post called it, an “inartfully written” sentence, but one that, in context, describes the sort of preposterous W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 9

28. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 04/15/2022 allegations she feared — not her actual mission.(…) Sanger’s stated mission was to empower women to make their own reproductive choices. She did focus her efforts on minority communities, because that was where, due to poverty and limited access to health care, women were especially vulnerable to the effects of unplanned pregnancy. As she framed it, birth control was the fundamental women’s rights issue. “Enforced motherhood,” she wrote in 1914, “is the most complete denial of a woman’s right to life and liberty.”That’s not to say that Sanger didn’t also make some deeply disturbing statements in support of eugenics, the now-discredited movement to improve the overall health and fitness of humankind through selective breeding. She did, and very publicly. In a 1921 article, she wrote that, “the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.” She was, of course, not alone in this viewpoint: In the 1920s and 1930s, eugenics enjoyed widespread support from mainstream doctors, scientists and the general public. Planned Parenthood officials are quick to note that, despite her thoughts on the idea in general, Sanger “uniformly repudiated the racist exploitation of eugenics principles.”What Margaret Sanger Really Said About Eugenics and Race. Time.: https://time.com/4081760/margaret-sanger-history-eugenics/ xiThe history of reproductive health care in the U.S. is fraught with racism, as white women’s reproductive health care access came at the cost of black and brown women’s lives. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a known eugenicist; the earliest forms of birth control were tested on Puerto Rican women, and black slaves were routinely purchased or rented by medical professionals to be tested on. Now, a group of Black women is calling for the removal of a statue in New York City that represents this dark history. The Black Youth Project 100, an activist group founded in 2013, staged a protest against the statue of J. Marion Sims outside the New York Academy of Medicine on August 19. They photographed their protest in a now-viral Facebook post in which they explain the reason they are calling for the statue’s removal. “J. Marion Sims was a gynecologist in the 1800s who purchased Black women slaves and used them as guinea pigs for his untested surgical experiments,” they wrote. “He repeatedly performed genital surgery on Black women WITHOUT ANESTHESIA because according to him, ‘Black women don’t feel pain.’” Why Black Women Are Protesting A Statue of This Famed Gynecologist. Huffington Post.: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-black-women-are-protesting-a-statue-of-this-famed- gynecologist_n_599adb63e4b0e8cc855ec8c7 xiiMichael Ayele (aka) W Files a Complaint California State University for Engaging in Fraud, W (AACL), YouTube.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFFBXHP_f5Q&t=2s W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 10

29. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 04/15/2022 Statement of W (AACL) – Michael A. Ayele on California State University (Fullerton) The Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL) acknowledges the existence of institutionalized chauvinism, discrimination, misogyny, racism and sexism. The AACL also recognizes that California State University is part of the systemic and ugly problem that has plagued the United States of America (USA) for centuries. The AACL strongly encourages prospective college and university students to think long and hard before submitting their application to study at California State University (if they desire to bring a positive change and be part of the solution). The AACL regrets California State University efforts to stir controversy and create negative publicity for the AACL. It is the opinion of the AACL that a segment of California State University employees and legal representatives have been extremely careless, irresponsible and negligent for failing to report and coordinate with the Department of Education (DoED) a records request dealing with the requirements of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. The AACL also regrets the existence of any links and connections to California State University as they are unfortunate. xiiiExcerpt of Email Sent by Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on March 11th 2022 at 12: 11 P.M Hello, Thank you for your email. I am in receipt of it. This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W. You may call me W. I am writing this letter in response to your latest correspondence. Please be advised that I continue to have several concerns about the manner in which you have processed my records request because [1] you (Felicia Taylor and the SEC overall) have given me the impression that you were not informed about the concepts of "affirmative and effective consent" after having been told about the rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery on April 1986 when you were an undergraduate student; [2] you (Felicia Taylor and the SEC overall) have remained silent on whether California State University (Fullerton) were being consistent with Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 12b-20, 13a-15(a), and 13a-16 when they decided to publish libelous and slanderous information about me in February 2020 (approximately a week before Valentine's Day) without contacting me (personally) to resolve their many systemic issues and/or the Department of Education (DoED) and/or the Department of Justice (DOJ); [3] you (Felicia Taylor and the SEC overall) have remained silent on the failed efforts of California State University to control my image, my likeness and my appearance on the Internet by sharing on their websites and their social network accounts extremely misleading information. E-mail sent by the SEC to Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W on March 11th 2022 at 2: 29 P.M Mr. Ayele, W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 11

30. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 04/15/2022 As explained in the attached letter, if you are interested in obtaining records pertaining to the Department of Education, Department of Justice, etc., please contact these agencies directly to obtaining such records. Further, we have identified 800 megabytes (equivalent to 16,000 pages or approximately 6.4 boxes) of electronic data and 59 documents of an unknown size of records concerning item 24 of your request for communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence between the SEC and Pearson PLC that may be responsive to your request. We also identified 27 pages of records concerning item 25 of your request for records pertaining to four SEC employees. These records are voluminous and qualify for processing in our Complex Track which we estimate may take thirty-six months or more before we can begin to process a request placed in our Complex Track. If you would like to discuss ways to narrow this portion of your request, please contact me by March 15, 2022. If I do not hear from you by this date I will assume you are no longer interested in our processing of this request and will close the request without further notice. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Felecia Taylor FOIA Lead Research Specialist U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission Office of FOIA Services 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549-2465 (202) 551-8349 - telephone number (202) 772-9337 - fax number Email Sent by Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W to the SEC on March 11th 2022 at 2:43 P.M Hello, Thank you for your email. I am in receipt of it. How would you suggest I further narrow my request in order for you to process it in the "simple" track? W (AACL) Michael A. Ayele Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist Audio-Visual Media Analyst Anti-Propaganda Journalist Email Sent by the SEC to Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W on March 11th 2022 at 2:54 P.M Mr. Ayele, W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 12

31. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 04/15/2022 In an effort to possibly narrow the scope of your request and avoid the Complex Track, you can request the records relating to item 27. In addition, with respect to item 24, you can request copies of the SEC subpoenas, case closing recommendation, and any transcripts of testimony (if taken). Thank you, Felecia Taylor FOIA Lead Research Specialist U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission Office of FOIA Services 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549-2465 (202) 551-8349 - telephone number (202) 772-9337 - fax number Email Sent by the SEC to Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W on March 11th 2022 at 3:12 P.M Hello, Thank you for your email. I am in receipt of it. This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W. You may call me W. To be clear, you're saying that this request would be processed in the "simple" track if I agree to request for prompt disclosure [1] documents outlining how Arsen Ablaev, Christine Bautista, Anny Faherty Hartman and Kristina Littman became involved in the litigation, which involved the SEC and Pearson PLC as well as [2] SEC subpoenas, case closing recommendation and any transcript of testimony. Right? Would this FOIA request be processed in the "simple" track if you disclose in addition to your suggestions, the academic backgrounds, the professional responsibilities and annual salaries of Arsen Ablaev, Christine Bautista, Amy Faherty and Kristina Littman? If so, I'd appreciate it. W (AACL) Michael A. Ayele Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist Audio-Visual Media Analyst Anti-Propaganda Journalist Email Sent by the SEC to Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W on March 11th 2022 at 3: 26 P.M Mr. Ayele, W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 13

32. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 04/15/2022 Please be advised that item 24 of your request sought communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence between the SEC and Pearson PLC before the conclusion of the settlement agreement. In my earlier e-mail today, I stated you can request item 27. However, this was a typo, I should have said you can request item 25 which sought the academic background, professional responsibilities and annual salaries of five SEC employees. Thus, you can attempt to narrow the scope by requesting the records relating to item 25. Regarding item 24, you can limit this portion of your request to any SEC subpoenas to Pearson, case closing recommendation and any transcripts of testimony (if taken). However, if you decide to agree to narrow the scope of your request to these items and the volume of records still qualifies for processing in our Complex Track, you will be notified and given another opportunity to narrow the scope. Please let me know how you wish to proceed. Thank you, Felecia Taylor FOIA Lead Research Specialist U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission Office of FOIA Services 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549-2465 (202) 551-8349 - telephone number (202) 772-9337 - fax number Email Sent by Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W to the SEC on March 11th 2022 at 4:13 P.M Hello, Thank you for your email. I am in receipt of it. This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W. You may call me W. Even though I had inadvertently put item No.: 24 as "communications in the form of emails and postal correspondence between the SEC and Pearson PLC before the conclusion of the settlement agreement concluded in August 2021," this was a typographical error on my part as it should have been listed as Item No.: 25. In the FOIA request I had submitted to the SEC on or around September 20th 2021, I have Item No.2 noted on two consecutive occasions for different records. Thus, you had correctly read the content of my records request the first time. To be clear, you're saying that my FOIA request could (being the operative word) be processed in the "simple" track if I agree that you disclose records within the possession of the SEC detailing [1] the academic backgrounds, the professional responsibilities and annual salaries of Arsen Ablaev, Christine Bautisata, Amy Faherty Hartman and Kristina Littman; [2] SEC subpoenas to Pearson, case closing recommendation and any transcript of testimony (if taken). But you can not be sure of that? W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 14

33. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 04/15/2022 If so, please be advised that I have concerns about your response because it fails to inform me as a representative of the media and a member of the general public how [1] Arsen Ablaev, Christine Bautisata, Amy Faherty Hartman and Kristina Littman became involved in the litigation, which involved the SEC and Pearson PLC; [2] the SEC became informed about the misleading press release issued by Pearson PLC. The core issues, which the SEC has failed to address (as of this writing dated March 11th 2022) are the following. 1) Is it in the public interest for the SEC to disclose records that have been qualified in the "Media Use" category on the subject of how your agency became informed about the misleading press release issued by Pearson PLC? 2) Is it in the public interest for the SEC to disclose records that have been qualified in the "Media Use" category on the subject of how Arsen Ablaev, Christine Bautista, Amy Faherty Hartman and Kristina Littman became involved in the litigation, which involved Pearson PLC? As a representative of the media and a member of the general public, I am interested in the records held by the SEC. I respectfully ask your cooperation in promptly disclosing records within the possession of the SEC detailing [1] the academic backgrounds of the 4 SEC employees I have mentioned; [2] the circumstances, which led up to these 4 SEC employees being involved in the litigation involving Pearson PLC; [3] the SEC subpoenas to Pearson, case closing recommendation and any transcript of testimony (if taken). I also ask for your cooperation in putting this request on the "simple" track. I sincerely hope you reconsider your response. Have a good day. Take care. W (AACL) Michael A. Ayele Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist Audio-Visual Media Analyst Anti-Propaganda Journalist W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 15

34. EXHIBIT 1.

44. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION STATION PLACE 100 F STREET, NE WASHINGTON, DC 20549-2465 Office of FOIA Services February 4, 2022 Mr. Michael Ayele Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties P.O. Box 20438 Addis Ababa Ethiopia RE: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 Request No. 21-02806-FOIA Dear Mr. Ayele: This letter is in response to your request, dated and received in this office on September 20, 2021, for access to information concerning 26 items ranging in topic from records pertaining to the Department of Education, Department of Justice, California State University (Fullerton), the SEC settlement agreement with Pearson PLC, and other information concerning four SEC staff names. Reference is also made to our response dated September 23, 2021, in which we addressed your requests for a fee waiver and expedited processing. With respect to items 1 thru 23 of your request for various information relating to the Department of Education, Department of Justice, etc., please be advised that the primary mission of the SEC is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. The SEC also oversees other key participants in the securities world, including stock exchanges, broker-dealers, investment advisors, mutual funds, and public utility holding companies. The Commission is principally concerned with promoting disclosure of important information, enforcing the securities laws, and protecting investors who interact with these various organizations and individuals. As such, these are not the type of records maintained by the SEC. You may wish to submit a FOIA request to the Department of Education.

45. Mr. Michael Ayele 21-02806-FOIA February 4, 2022 Page 2 We will be unable to respond to items 24 and 25 of your request within the Freedom of Information Act's twenty day statutory time period, as there are unusual circumstances which impact on our ability to quickly process your request. Therefore, we are invoking the 10 day extension. These unusual circumstances are: (a) the need to search for and collect records from an organization geographically separated from this office; (b) the potential volume of records responsive to your request; and (c) the need for consultation with one or more other offices having a substantial interest in either the determination or the subject matter of the records. For these reasons, we will process your case consistent with the order in which we received your request. We have identified 800 megabytes (equivalent to 16,000 pages or approximately 6.4 boxes1) of electronic data and 59 documents of an unknown size of records concerning item 24 of your request for communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence between the SEC and Pearson PLC that may be responsive to your request. We also identified 27 pages of records concerning item 25 of your request for records pertaining to four SEC employees. Under the FOIA, you are considered a “Media” requester. As such, all search and review services are free of charge to you. In addition, because any records that would be released would be provided electronically to you, no duplication fees will be charged. Since the records are voluminous, if requested, we would process them in our Complex track. Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6) (D)(i) agencies may provide for multi-track processing of requests for records based on the amount of work or time (or both) involved in processing requests. The SEC’s regulation implementing multi- track processing is located at 17 CFR § 200.80(d)(4). At present we anticipate that it may take thirty-six months or more before we can begin to process a request placed in our Complex track. 1 Please note that estimating the page count/box equivalent of electronic data is not a precise measurement; consequently, the exact number of pages/boxes may be more or less than estimated here.

46. Mr. Michael Ayele 21-02806-FOIA February 4, 2022 Page 3 If you are interested in having us place your request in our Complex Track, please write or call me by February 18, 2022 and identify the records of interest to you. If you have any questions, or if you would like to discuss ways in which you can narrow the scope of your request to possibly avoid placement in our Complex track, please contact me at taylorf@sec.gov or (202) 551-8349. You may also contact me at foiapa@sec.gov or (202) 551-7900. You may also contact the SEC’s FOIA Public Service Center at foiapa@sec.gov or (202) 551- 7900. For more information about the FOIA Public Service Center and other options available to you please see the attached addendum. Sincerely, Felecia Taylor FOIA Lead Research Specialist Enclosure

47. ADDENDUM For further assistance you can contact a SEC FOIA Public Liaison by calling (202) 551-7900 or visiting https://www.sec.gov/oso/help/foia-contact.html. SEC FOIA Public Liaisons are supervisory staff within the Office of FOIA Services. They can assist FOIA requesters with general questions or concerns about the SEC’s FOIA process or about the processing of their specific request. In addition, you may also contact the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) at the National Archives and Records Administration to inquire about the FOIA dispute resolution services it offers. OGIS can be reached at 1-877-684-6448 or via e-mail at ogis@nara.gov. Information concerning services offered by OGIS can be found at their website at Archives.gov. Note that contacting the FOIA Public Liaison or OGIS does not stop the 90- day appeal clock and is not a substitute for filing an administrative appeal.

48. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION STATION PLACE 100 F STREET, NE WASHINGTON, DC 20549-2465 Office of FOIA Services January 13, 2022 Mr. Michael Ayele Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties PO Box 20438 Addis Ababa, N/A Re: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 Appeal No. 20-00162-APPS (Request No. 21-02806-FOIA) Dear Mr. Ayele: This letter is an acknowledgment of the Office of General Counsels remand of your FOIA appeal, dated and received in this office on January 10, 2022, regarding California State University (Fullerton). Your remand has been assigned tracking number 22-00034- REMD. Your request will be assigned to a Research Specialist for processing and you will be notified of the findings as soon as possible. If you do not receive a response after thirty business days from when we received your remanded request you have the right to seek dispute resolution services from an SEC FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). A list of SEC FOIA Public Liaisons can be found on our agency website at https://www.sec.gov/oso/contact/foia-contact.html. OGIS can be reached at 1-877-684-6448 or Archives.gov or via email at ogis@nara.gov. In the interim, if you have any questions about your request, you may contact this office by calling 202-551-7900, or sending an e-mail message to foiapa@sec.gov. Please refer to your tracking number when contacting us. Sincerely, Office of FOIA Services

49. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL Stop 9613 Via electronic mail waacl13@gmail.com Mr. Michael Ayele Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties P.O. Box 20438 Addis Ababa, Ethiopa Re: Appeal, Freedom of Information Act Request No. 21-02806-FOIA, designated on appeal as No. 22-00160-APPS This responds to your January 3, 2022 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal regarding the delay in the FOIA Office’s response to your September 20, 2021 FOIA request. I have reviewed your appeal and confirmed with the FOIA Office that it is still reviewing your FOIA request. I am, therefore, remanding this matter to the FOIA Office and requesting that the FOIA Officer process these requests as expeditiously as possible. You may contact Lizzette Katilius, FOIA Branch Chief, at 202-551-7900, regarding the status of this matter on remand. If you have any questions regarding this determination, please contact Mark Tallarico, Senior Counsel, at 202-551-5132. For the Commission January 10, 2022 by delegated authority, Melinda Hardy Assistant General Counsel for Litigation and Administrative Practice

50. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION STATION PLACE 100 F STREET, NE WASHINGTON, DC 20549-2465 Office of FOIA Services January 5, 2022 Mr. Michael Ayele Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties PO Box 20438 Addis Ababa Re: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 Appeal No. 22-00160-APPS (21-02806-FOIA) Dear Mr. Ayele: This letter is an acknowledgment of your FOIA Appeal dated January 1, 2022 and received in this office on January 3, 2022 regarding Jeanne Clery - Chanel Miller - Fraud & Racketeering at California State University (Fullerton). Your appeal has been assigned tracking number 22-00160-APPS, and is assigned to the SEC’s Office of the General Counsel for processing. You will receive a direct response from that office regarding a decision on your Appeal. In the interim, if you have questions about your appeal, you may contact the Office of the General Counsel by calling202-551- 5100, or sending an email to foiapa@sec.gov. Please cite the Appeal tracking number provided above. Sincerely, Office of FOIA Services