In the Matter of Teresa Sheehan v City & County of San Francisco (California)

1. THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) FILES AN APPEAL WITH THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY (NCD) CHALLENGING THE ADEQUACY OF THE SEARCH THEY HAVE PERFORMED FOR THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST SUBMITTED ABOUT THEIR FEBRUARY 17TH 2015 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF ON BEHALF OF TERESA SHEEHAN. 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

2. FOIA REQUEST CASE NO.: NCD – 2022 - 07 04/18/2022 W (AACL) Michael A. Ayele P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia E-mail: waacl13@gmail.com ; waacl1313@gmail.com ; waacl42913@gmail.com Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request Case No.: NCD – 2022 – 07 Hello, Thank you for your email. I am in receipt of it. I am writing this letter in response to your correspondence from April 05th 2022 to express concerns about the manner in which the National Council on Disability (NCD) processed my FOIA request, which had been assigned Case No.: 2022 – 07. Specifically, I would like to take this opportunity to express concerns with the NCD’s failure to disclose [1] how they became informed about the arrest of Teresa Sheehan on August 07th 2008; [2] the discussions held between employees of your offices with legal representatives of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law before filing the Amicus Curiae brief in the matter of City and County of San Francisco v Teresa Sheehan; [3] the discussions held between employees of your offices with legal representatives of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law since the adverse court determination in the matter of City and County of San Francisco v Teresa Sheehan. The core issues raised in this records request, which the website of the NCD doesn’t address are the following. 1) How did the NCD become aware of Teresa Sheehan arrest on August 07th 2008? 2) What conversations (in the form of emails and postal correspondence) were had between the NCD, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law following the arrest of Teresa Sheehan for the purpose of filing the Amicus Curiae brief? 3) What conversations (in the form of emails and postal correspondence) were had between the NCD, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law since the adverse court determination in the matter of City and County of San Francisco v Teresa Sheehan? As a representative of the media and a member of the general public, I am requesting that the NCD disclose records that have not been made publicly available on their website. Specifically, I am asking that the NCD perform a more thorough search for records within their possession detailing [1] the names, the academic backgrounds, the professional responsibilities and annual salaries of people who have reached out to them since the arrest of Teresa Sheehan on August Date.: April 18th 2022 W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 1

3. FOIA REQUEST CASE NO.: NCD – 2022 - 07 04/18/2022 07th 2008; [2] the discussions held between employees of your your offices with legal representatives of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law before filing the Amicus Curiae brief in the matter of City and County of San Francisco v Teresa Sheehan; [3] the discussions held between your offices with legal representatives of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law since the adverse court determination in the matter of City and County of San Francisco v Teresa Sheehan. I sincerely hope you reconsider your response. Be well. Take care. Respectfully submitted: W (AACL) Michael A. Ayele Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist Audio-Visual Media Analyst Anti-Propaganda Journalist W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 2

4. National Council on Disability An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families. April 5, 2022 W (AACL) Michael A. Ayele PO Box 20438 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Re: FOIA Request NCD-2022-07 Dear W: This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal, dated February 22, 2022, specifically you requested: “What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are all records within your possession detailing (1) the formal and informal ties that exist between your office, the NCD,v the APA,vi the American Psychological Association, vii the NAMI,viii the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law,ix the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the City of Baltimore, Maryland and the City & County of San Francisco; (2) your communications about Teresa Sheehan as a woman, who was shot multiple times by San Francisco Police officers on August 07th 2008; (3) your communications about what truly occurred on the morning of August 07th 2008; x (4) your communications about the benefits of having police officers wear body cameras for the safety of the communities they are entrusted to protect; (5) your communications about the benefits of having police officers wear body cameras for the purpose of building community trust transparency and accountability in their daily activities; (6) your communications about the benefits of having mental/public health treatment centers install audio and video security cameras for the safety of patients/prisoners as well as staff working in the facilities; (7) the training provided by your police/sheriff departments on the reasonable use of force and in forcing warrantless entries into private residences; (8) the training provided by your police/sheriff departments on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA);xi (9) the training provided to your police/sheriff department on the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution for what constitutes unreasonable search and seizures; (10) the training provided to your police/sheriff departments on the EEOC and the laws they enforce pursuant to Title VII of the 1964 and 1991 Civil Rights Act; (11) your communications about “homelessness and unemployment correlating with illness and encounters with police;” (12) your communications about the shift from “long-term care in state psychiatric hospital to community basedtreatments;” (13) the communications between the NCD, the NAMI, the APA, the American Psychological Association, the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law before and after the submission of their Amicus Curiae brief to 1331 F Street, NW ■ Suite 850 ■ Washington, DC 20004 202-272-2004 Voice ■ 202-272-2022 Fax ■ www.ncd.gov

5. the Supreme Court on the issue of the ADA in the State of California and elsewhere; (14) your communications about the decision of the Supreme Court to grant qualified immunity to Sergeant Kimberly Reynold and Officer Kathrine Holder for their arrest of Teresa Sheehan; xii (15) your communications about the decision of the U.S House of Representative to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act for the purpose of banning chokeholds and qualified immunity for law enforcement;xiii (16) your communications about the criminal charges filed against San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) officer Kenneth Cha in the death of Sean Moore; xiv (17) your communications about Sean Moore, as a person who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia at the time of his shooting death; (18) your communications about the decision of SFPD officer Kenneth Cha to plead not guilty in the homicide charges, which were filed against him; xv (19) your communications about Freddie Gray as a Black/African American man who was born August 16th 1989 in Baltimore, Maryland; xvi (20) your communications about the arrest of Freddie Gray on April 12th 2015 for possession of a “switchblade;”xvii (21) your communications about the decision of the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) to recognize that Freddie Gray “was not buckled in, as required bydepartment policy” during his transportation to jail;xviii (22) your communications about the BPD as a law enforcement agency, which has previously faced a litany of complaints for the manner in which they have transported arrestees;xix (23) your communications about the death of Freddie Gray’s being ruled a homicide by Maryland state medical examiner;xx (24) your communications about the decision of Baltimore City State Attorney Marilyn Mosby to file criminal charges against employees of the BPD involved in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray; (25) your communications about the non-conviction of BPD employees involved in the arrest of Freddie Gray; xxi (26) your communications about Freddie Gray as a Black/African American man who had a personal right to carry an assisted-opener knife without fear of arrest; xxii (27) your communications about the decision of the DOJ not to file federal criminal civil rights charges in the death of Freddie Gray; xxiii (28) your communications about the findings of the DOJ investigation into the practices of the BPD on August 10th 2016; xxiv (29) your communications about the complaint filed by Marilyn Mosby with the FCC against WBFF; (30) your communications about the response of the FCC to the complaint filed by Marilyn Mosby; xxv (31) your communications about the decision of (former Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton to criticize Fox News for their often-times misleading reports on vital issues facing the U.S;xxvi (32) your communications about the motion filed by Special Counsel John H. Durham with the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia (a.k.a) E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse; xxvii (33) your communications about the response filed by Michael A. Sussmann’s lawyers with the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia; xxviii (34) your communications about Fox News frequent unfair personal and professional attacks of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez;(35) your communications about Fox News as a media organization, which has incited violence to be committed against Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; (36) your communications about Fox News as a media organization, which has intentionally and maliciously denigrated the origins of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez;xxix (37) your communications about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a Latina Congresswoman xxx who has thus far not filed a complaint (against Fox News) for defamation and libel with the FCC and/or the judicial branch of the U.S government; 2

6. (38) your communications about the dismissed defamation lawsuit filed by Sarah Palin against the New York Times;xxxi (39) your communications about the New York Times as a media organization, which recognized that it had made an “honest error” on the story they had published about Sarah Palin linking her to the deadly 2011 shooting that injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords;xxxii (40) your communications about the Supreme Court finding in New York Times Company v Sullivan that “to sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff showthat the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless when deciding to publish theinformation without investigating whether it was accurate;”xxxiii (41) your communications about the decision of the DOJ to indict Marilyn Mosby on federal charges of perjury and making false mortgage applications; xxxiv (42) your communications about the interview of Marilyn Mosby with MSNBC journalist Joy Reid; xxxv (43) your communications about the decision of Marilyn Mosby to plead not guilty on federal perjury charges brought on by the DOJ; xxxvi (44) your communications about the cost of policing having tripled in the past 4 decades to reach $115 billion; (45) your communications about the “defund the police” movement as one that seeks to take money away from police and prisons for the purpose of prioritizing housing, employment, community health and education; xxxvii (46) your communications about the decision of several US cities to defund the police; xxxviii (47) your communications about the significant pushback faced by proponents of the defund the police movement from high-ranking members of the U.S Democratic and Republican parties; xxxix (48) your communications about the television series entitled The Good Fight deciding to show on the 5th episode of season 2, Rose Leslie and Cush Jumbo as private attorneys in police night shift ride-along;xl (49) your communications about the benefits of having attorneys (who specialize in police brutality cases) accompany law enforcement agents during their patrol of the city/county that is within their jurisdiction; (50) your communications about the provisions of the 6th Amendment of the U.S Constitution permitting attorneys (who specialize in police brutality cases) to accompany law enforcement agents during their patrol of the city/county that is within their jurisdiction; (51) the academic backgrounds, the professional responsibilities and annual salaries of John L. Burris, David W. Ogden, Daniel S. Volchok, Aaron M. Panner, Ira A. Burnim, Alison N. Barkoff, Zy Richardson, Jonathan E. Algor, Andrew J. DeFilippis, Michael T. Keilty, John H. Durham, Sean M. Berkowitz, Michael S. Bosworth, Natalie Hardwick Rao, Catherine J. Yao, Erek L. Barron, Thomas J. Sobocinski, Darrell J. Waldon and A. Scott Bolden.” Your request for all records detailing the formal and informal ties that exist between NCD and other various agencies is vague and unduly burdensome. It does not reasonably describe the records you request. See 5 USC §5 552(a)(3)(A). If you refine your request, NCD will try to fulfill this portion. In regard to requests for information labeled 2-50, all official NCD correspondence is available on NCD’s website at NCD.gov. There are no other agency records responsive to your request. In response to request 51, NCD does not employ any of the requested professionals and therefore has no responsive records. For tracking purposes, your tracking number is NCD-2022-07. 3

7. If you need further assistance, you may contact Amy Nicholas, NCD’s FOIA Public Liaison at 202-731-2313 or anicholas@ncd.gov. Please include your tracking number with any correspondence. If needed, it is your right to seek dispute resolution services from NCD’s Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). OGIS may be reached at: Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) National Archives and Records Administration 8601 Adelphi Road College Park, MD 20740-6001 OGIS@Nara.gov 202-741-5770 fax 202-741-5769 NCD’s appeal process allows you to appeal withheld information or the adequacy of NCD’s search by writing within 90 days of your receipt of this letter to: Anne Sommers McIntosh Executive Director National Council on Disability 1331 F St. NW. Suite 850 Washington DC 20004 Your appeal must be in writing and should contain a brief statement of the reasons why you believe the requested information should be released. Enclose a copy of your initial request, request number and a copy of this letter. Both the appeal letter and envelope should be prominently marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.” After processing, actual fees must be equal to or exceed $25 for the Council to require payment of fees. See 5 CFR §10,00010k. The fulfillment of your request did not exceed $25, therefor there is no billable fee for the processing of this request. Respectfully, Joan Durocher Chief FOIA Officer 4

8. National Council on Disability An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families. March 18, 2022 W (AACL) Michael A. Ayele PO Box 20438 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Re: FOIA Request NCD-2022-08 Dear W: This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, dated March 6, 2022, in which you requested: ”Thank you for your email. I am in receipt of it. I am writing this letter in response to your February 23rd 2022 correspondence. Please be advised that I am contacting you to express several concerns about the manner in which you have processed my records request. Specifically, I have concerns with your failure to (1) identify the police/sheriff departments the Missouri Department of Mental Health (DMH) has working relationships with; (2) the training provided by the DMH to police/sheriff departments on the subject of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); (3) the training provided to employees of the DMH on the subject of the ADA. As a former employee of the DMH Fulton State Hospital (FSH), I have several additional concerns about your response because you had previously disclosed to me the policies adopted by the DMH on the use of audio and video cameras inside the wards, where patients/prisoners are held. In the records request I had submitted on February 22nd 2022, I had expressed concerns about the arrest of Teresa Sheehan because of conflicting testimonies as to what truly occurred before the incident, which led to her being shot by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) in August 2008. Conflicting testimonies had also been submitted to the judicial branch of the California government on what the appropriate police response should have been. Given these conflicting testimonies, I had requested that you disclose your communications about the benefits of having audio and video cameras installed in public/mental health treatment centers. In your response from February 23rd 2022, you have failed to address this portion of my request. As a former employee of the FSH, I ask that you provide an adequate response to my request by promptly disclosing (1) your communications about the benefits of having audio and video cameras installed in public/mental health treatment centers; (2) the Sunshine request submitted to the DMH asking for specific recorded audio and video moments between staff amongst themselves; (3) the Sunshine request submitted to the DMH asking for specific recorded 1331 F Street, NW ■ Suite 850 ■ Washington, DC 20004 202-272-2004 Voice ■ 202-272-2022 Fax ■ www.ncd.gov

9. audio and video moments between staff and patients; (4) the Sunshine request submitted to the DMH asking for specific recorded audio and video moments between patients amongst themselves. The core issues presented in this records request are the following. 1) Has the DMH concluded a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and/or a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with police/sheriff departments throughout the State of Missouri? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records that are within your possession? 2) Does the DMH provide training to police/sheriff departments in the State of Missouri on the subject of the ADA? If yes, will you promptly disclose the training provided by employees of the DMH on the subject of the ADA as well as the training they are provided themselves? 3) Have records requests been submitted to the DMH asking for your offices to disclose specific recorded audio and video moments depicting interactions between (i) staff of the DMH amongst themselves; (ii) staff and patients of the DMH; (iii) patients of the DMH amongst themselves? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records requests submitted to the DMH alongside the response provided by the DMH to such requests? I would again like to reiterate that I am requesting for prompt disclosure records that exist within your possession detailing (1) the formal/informal ties that exist between the DMH and police/sheriff departments in the State of Missouri; (2) the MOU/MOA concluded between the DMH and police/sheriff departments in the State of Missouri; (3) the training provided by the DMH to police/sheriff departments on the subject of the ADA; (4) the training provided to employees of the DMH on the subject of the ADA; (5) the formal/informal opinions held by the DMH on the “defund the police” movement; (6) your communications about the benefits of having audio and video cameras installed in public/mental health treatment centers taking into consideration what occurred to Teresa Sheehan in August 2008; (7) the Sunshine request submitted to the DMH asking for specific recorded audio and video moments depicting interactions between (i) staff of the DMH amongst themselves; (ii) staff and patients of the DMH; (iii) patients of the DMH amongst themselves; (8) the response provided by the DMH to Sunshine requests of specific recorded audio and video interactions such as those described in Item No.7.” It appears that NCD is not the intended party for this FOIA appeal. NCD did not correspond with you on February 22 and NCD has never been in possession of any of the records you request. For tracking purposes, your tracking number is NCD-2022-08. If you need further assistance, you may contact Amy Nicholas, NCD’s FOIA Public Liaison at 202-731-2313 or anicholas@ncd.gov. Please include your tracking number with any correspondence. If needed, it is your right to seek dispute resolution services from NCD’s Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). OGIS may be reached at: Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) 2

10. National Archives and Records Administration 8601 Adelphi Road College Park, MD 20740-6001 OGIS@Nara.gov 202-741-5770 fax 202-741-5769 NCD’s appeal process allows you to appeal withheld information or the adequacy of NCD’s search by writing within 90 days of your receipt of this letter to: Anne Sommers McIntosh Executive Director National Council on Disability 1331 F St. NW. Suite 850 Washington DC 20004 Your appeal must be in writing and should contain a brief statement of the reasons why you believe the requested information should be released. Enclose a copy of your initial request, request number and a copy of this letter. Both the appeal letter and envelope should be prominently marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.” After processing, actual fees must be equal to or exceed $25 for the Council to require payment of fees. See 5 CFR §10,00010k. The fulfillment of your request did not exceed $25, therefore there is no billable fee for the processing of this request. Respectfully, Joan Durocher Chief FOIA Officer 3

11. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 W (AACL) Michael A. Ayele P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia E-mail: waacl13@gmail.com ; waacl1313@gmail.com ; waacl42913@gmail.com 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 request for records are (1) the brief of Amicus Curiae submitted to the Supreme Court by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological Association, the National Council on Disability (NCD), the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health in the case of City and County of San Francisco v Teresa Sheehan;ii (2) the criminal charges filed against San Francisco police officer Kenneth Cha in the death of Sean Moore and; iii (3) the recent interview of Baltimore City State Attorney Marilyn Mosby on MSNBC with Joy Reid.iv I) Records Requested What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are all records within your possession detailing (1) the formal and informal ties that exist between your office, the NCD,v the APA,vi the American Psychological Association, vii the NAMI,viii the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law,ix the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the City of Baltimore, Maryland and the City & County of San Francisco; (2) your communications about Teresa Sheehan as a woman, who was shot multiple times by San Francisco Police officers on August 07th 2008; (3) your communications about what truly occurred on the morning of August 07th 2008; x (4) your communications about the benefits of having police officers wear body cameras for the safety of the communities they are entrusted to protect; (5) your communications about the benefits of having police officers wear body cameras for the purpose of building community trust transparency and accountability in their daily activities; (6) your communications about the benefits of having mental/public health treatment centers install audio and video security cameras for the safety of patients/prisoners as well as staff working in the facilities; (7) the training provided by your police/sheriff departments on the reasonable use of force and in forcing warrantless entries into private residences; (8) the training provided by your police/sheriff departments on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA);xi (9) the training provided to your police/sheriff department on the 4th Amendment of the U.S Constitution for what constitutes unreasonable search and seizures; (10) the training provided to your police/sheriff departments on the EEOC and the laws they enforce pursuant to Title VII of the 1964 and 1991 Civil Rights Act; (11) your communications about “homelessness and unemployment correlating with illness and encounters with police;” (12) your communications about the shift from “long-term care in state psychiatric hospital to community based treatments;” (13) the communications between the NCD, the NAMI, the APA, the American Date.: February 22nd 2022 W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 1

12. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 Psychological Association, the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law before and after the submission of their Amicus Curiae brief to the Supreme Court on the issue of the ADA in the State of California and elsewhere; (14) your communications about the decision of the Supreme Court to grant qualified immunity to Sergeant Kimberly Reynold and Officer Kathrine Holder for their arrest of Teresa Sheehan; xii (15) your communications about the decision of the U.S House of Representative to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act for the purpose of banning chokeholds and qualified immunity for law enforcement;xiii (16) your communications about the criminal charges filed against San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) officer Kenneth Cha in the death of Sean Moore; xiv (17) your communications about Sean Moore, as a person who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia at the time of his shooting death; (18) your communications about the decision of SFPD officer Kenneth Cha to plead not guilty in the homicide charges, which were filed against him; xv (19) your communications about Freddie Gray as a Black/African American man who was born August 16th 1989 in Baltimore, Maryland; xvi (20) your communications about the arrest of Freddie Gray on April 12th 2015 for possession of a “switchblade;”xvii (21) your communications about the decision of the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) to recognize that Freddie Gray “was not buckled in, as required by department policy” during his transportation to jail;xviii (22) your communications about the BPD as a law enforcement agency, which has previously faced a litany of complaints for the manner in which they have transported arrestees;xix (23) your communications about the death of Freddie Gray’s being ruled a homicide by Maryland state medical examiner;xx (24) your communications about the decision of Baltimore City State Attorney Marilyn Mosby to file criminal charges against employees of the BPD involved in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray; (25) your communications about the non-conviction of BPD employees involved in the arrest of Freddie Gray; xxi (26) your communications about Freddie Gray as a Black/African American man who had a personal right to carry an assisted-opener knife without fear of arrest; xxii (27) your communications about the decision of the DOJ not to file federal criminal civil rights charges in the death of Freddie Gray; xxiii (28) your communications about the findings of the DOJ investigation into the practices of the BPD on August 10th 2016; xxiv (29) your communications about the complaint filed by Marilyn Mosby with the FCC against WBFF; (30) your communications about the response of the FCC to the complaint filed by Marilyn Mosby; xxv (31) your communications about the decision of (former Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton to criticize Fox News for their often-times misleading reports on vital issues facing the U.S;xxvi (32) your communications about the motion filed by Special Counsel John H. Durham with the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia (a.k.a) E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse; xxvii (33) your communications about the response filed by Michael A. Sussmann’s lawyers with the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia; xxviii (34) your communications about Fox News frequent unfair personal and professional attacks of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez;(35) your communications about Fox News as a media organization, which has incited violence to be committed against Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; (36) your communications about Fox News as a media organization, which has intentionally and maliciously denigrated the origins of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez;xxix (37) your communications about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a Latina Congresswoman xxx who has thus far not filed a complaint (against Fox News) for defamation and libel with the FCC and/or the judicial branch of the U.S government; (38) your communications about the dismissed defamation lawsuit filed by Sarah Palin against the New York Times;xxxi (39) your communications about the New York Times as a media organization, which recognized that it W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 2

13. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 had made an “honest error” on the story they had published about Sarah Palin linking her to the deadly 2011 shooting that injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords;xxxii (40) your communications about the Supreme Court finding in New York Times Company v Sullivan that “to sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless when deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate;”xxxiii (41) your communications about the decision of the DOJ to indict Marilyn Mosby on federal charges of perjury and making false mortgage applications; xxxiv (42) your communications about the interview of Marilyn Mosby with MSNBC journalist Joy Reid; xxxv (43) your communications about the decision of Marilyn Mosby to plead not guilty on federal perjury charges brought on by the DOJ; xxxvi (44) your communications about the cost of policing having tripled in the past 4 decades to reach $115 billion; (45) your communications about the “defund the police” movement as one that seeks to take money away from police and prisons for the purpose of prioritizing housing, employment, community health and education; xxxvii (46) your communications about the decision of several US cities to defund the police; xxxviii (47) your communications about the significant pushback faced by proponents of the defund the police movement from high-ranking members of the U.S Democratic and Republican parties; xxxix (48) your communications about the television series entitled The Good Fight deciding to show on the 5th episode of season 2, Rose Leslie and Cush Jumbo as private attorneys in police night shift ride-along;xl (49) your communications about the benefits of having attorneys (who specialize in police brutality cases) accompany law enforcement agents during their patrol of the city/county that is within their jurisdiction; (50) your communications about the provisions of the 6th Amendment of the U.S Constitution permitting attorneys (who specialize in police brutality cases) to accompany law enforcement agents during their patrol of the city/county that is within their jurisdiction; (51) the academic backgrounds, the professional responsibilities and annual salaries of John L. Burris, David W. Ogden, Daniel S. Volchok, Aaron M. Panner, Ira A. Burnim, Alison N. Barkoff, Zy Richardson, Jonathan E. Algor, Andrew J. DeFilippis, Michael T. Keilty, John H. Durham, Sean M. Berkowitz, Michael S. Bosworth, Natalie Hardwick Rao, Catherine J. Yao, Erek L. Barron, Thomas J. Sobocinski, Darrell J. Waldon and A. Scott Bolden. II) Request for a Fee Waiver and Expedited Processing The requested records have demonstrated that (1) the New York Times is a news media organization, which previously won a landmark lawsuit for placing ads that were critical of the police brutality faced by Martin Luther King Jr. in Montgomery, Alabama; (2) the lives and well-being of Teresa Sheehan, Freddie Gray and Sean Moore were put at significant risk because of their suspicious arrests without probable cause; (3) the once promising career prospects of Marilyn Mosby have come to a standstill because of her entanglement in the case of Freddie Gray; (4) Marilyn and Nick Mosby were in the not so distant past considered by Marylanders as a power couple comparable to Hillary and Bill Clinton; xli (5) Fox News is a media outlet, which has incited violence to be committed against Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez because of her racial background, her gender and her political positions; (6) Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has not yet filed a complaint with the FCC and/or the judicial branch of the U.S government for libel and defamation against Fox News. In my opinion, the facts I have described in my request for a fee waiver and expedited processing are not the sort to bolster public confidence in the efforts of the U.S government to deal with the systemic chauvinism, W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 3

14. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 discrimination, misogyny, racism and sexism plaguing American society. The core issues presented in this records request are the following. 1) Does the ADA apply during the arrests/detentions of people who do not suffer from a physical and/or a mental impairment? Should the ADA apply during the arrests/detentions of people who do not suffer from a physical and/or a mental impairment for the purpose of preventing police use of excessive force, which has the potential to cause physical and emotional trauma? Has the Amicus Curiae brief filed by the NCD, the NAMI, the APA, the American Psychological Association and the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law inspired the San Francisco District Attorney to file criminal charges with the courts in circumstances where police use excessive force against people with disabilities? What conversations were had between your offices on the subject of the ADA? Would it be consistent with the 6th Amendment of the U.S Constitution to have attorneys (specializing in police brutality cases) accompany police/sheriff departments employees during the arrest and transportation of people to jails/prisons? 2) Is Fox News being consistent with the provisions of the 1st Amendment of the U.S Constitution when inciting violence against Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez because of her racial background, her gender and her political opinions? 3) Has the narrative of Fox News contributed to the January 06th 2021 insurrection and ensuing violence? If yes, what responsibilities should befall this news organization? How should they be held accountable? 4) Is the “defund the police” movement unpopular among the public because there’s as much faith in police officers as there is for social workers, nurses, psychologists, psychiatrists, medical doctors and other personnel working in city/county/state governments? Is the “defund the police” movement unpopular because people don’t trust their police/sheriff departments in similar ways they have little faith in their human rights agency, their public/mental health treatment centers, the DOJ, the EEOC, the Department of Education (DoED), and the Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD)? On the bases of the issues that have been raised, I believe this records request should be expedited and all fees waived. In my judgment, the records I have requested to be promptly disclosed (1) puts into question the government’s integrity because of decisions that have adversely impacted public confidence about the manner in which women and racial minorities are treated in the United States of America (U.S.A); (2) identifies operations and activities of the federal government in concert with U.S local and state government; (3) 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. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that all the statements I have made are to the best of my knowledge true and accurate. Have a good day. 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

15. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 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/ iiBrief Amicus Curiae of the National Council on Disability in Support of Respondent – City and County of San Francisco, California, et al v Terersa Sheehan, NCD.: https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015 iiiA San Francisco police officer has been charged with voluntary manslaughter over a fatal shooting in 2017, marking a rare homicide charge for an on-duty law enforcement officer in the California city. Kenneth Cha was charged with voluntary manslaughter and assault with a semi- automatic firearm, along with enhancements accusing him of inflicting great bodily injury, in the death of Sean Moore, an unarmed man he shot on 6 January 2017. Moore died from his injuries last year. “We rely on officers to follow their training and to de-escalate situations; instead, in just eight minutes, Officer Cha elevated a non-violent encounter to one that took Sean Moore’s life,” said the city’s district attorney, Chesa Boudin, in a statement announcing the charges. “Sean Moore was unarmed and at hisown home when Officer Cha shot him twice.” San Francisco police officer faces rare homicide charge over 2017 shooting, The Guardian.: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/02/san-francisco-police-kenneth-cha-charged- sean-moore ivBaltimore City State’s Attorney Denies Charges She Calls Retaliation for Indicting Law Enforcement, MSNBC.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1gPs5xRGR4 v In the brief filed with the Supreme Court, the National Council on Disability (NCD) describe themselves as an “independent federal agency charged with advising the President, Congress, and other federal agencies on policies and practices that affect people with disabilities. Council members are appointed by the President and Congress and are representative of national organizations concerned with individuals with disabilities, providers and administrators of services to individuals with disabilities, business concerns, labor organizations, and individuals W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 5

16. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 with disabilities themselves. In furtherance of its duties, the Council systematically gathers and provides decision makers with information relevant to the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.” Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Council on Disability in Support of Respondent – City and County of San Francisco, California, et al v Terersa Sheehan,NCD.: https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015 viIn the brief filed with the Supreme Court of the United States (U.S) on February 17th 2015, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) describe themselves as the “Nation’s leading organization of physicians who specialize in psychiatry” with more than 36,000 members. Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Council on Disability in Support of Respondent – City and County of San Francisco, California, et al v Terersa Sheehan,NCD.: https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015 vii In the brief filed with the Supreme Court on February 2015, the American Psychological Association (APA) describe themselves as “the leading association of psychologists in the United States.” “A non-profit scientific and professional organization, it has approximately 155,000 members and affiliates. Among its major purposes are to increase and disseminate knowledge regarding human behavior, and to foster the application of psychological learning to important human concerns.” Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Council on Disability in Support of Respondent – City and County of San Francisco, California, et al v Terersa Sheehan, NCD.: https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015 viii In the brief filed with the Supreme Court on February 2015, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) describe themselves as the “nation’s largest grassroots mental health organization advocating on behalf of individuals and families affected by mental illness. NAMI has worked for many years with federal, state, and local law enforcement and mental health agencies on crisis intervention team (CIT) programs and strategies to de-escalate mental health crises and reduce adverse outcomes such as deaths and serious injuries.” Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Council on Disability in Support of Respondent – City and County of San Francisco, California, et al v Terersa Sheehan,NCD.: https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015 ixIn the brief filed on February 2015, the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law describe themselves as a “national public interest organization founded in 1972 to advance the rights of individuals with mental disabilities. The Center advocates for laws and policies that provide people with mental illness or intellectual disability the opportunities and resources they need to participate fully in their communities. Its litigation and policy advocacy is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act’s guarantees of non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation. The Center has long worked for the diversion of people with mental illness from the criminal justice system and for safer police practices.” Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Council on Disability in Support of Respondent – City and County of San Francisco, California, W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 6

17. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 et al v Terersa Sheehan,NCD.: https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015 x On August 7, 2008, Plaintiff TERESA SHEEHAN, a 56 year old woman with no criminal record, resided at Conard co-op, located at 1941 15th Street, in San Francisco, in a room of which she was the sole lessee. No one else resided in Plaintiff’s room at Conard co-op. Plaintiff SHEEHAN had lived at Conard co-op for several years. Conard co-op is an independent-living, cooperative program in San Francisco for people suffering from chronic mental illness. Plaintiff SHEEHAN had no history of violence. Residents of Conard co-op become residents by referral through Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant CITY provides funding for Conard co-op. Plaintiff SHEEHAN has suffered from chronic schizo- affective disorder since she was a young woman. Plaintiff SHEEHAN takes medication to control the psychiatric disorder. A social worker supervises five counselors who work at Conard co-op, assisting residents in their daily living, treatment, and medication. At the time of the subject- incident, Heath Hodge was the social worker for Conard co-op, and was on-call to provide assistance as requested. (…) On August 7, 2008, Mr. Hodge came to Conard co-op of his own accord, without being called, to check on Plaintiff. Plaintiff had been absent from house meetings and meetings with staff for two weeks, and was reportedly coming and going at odd hours. During this time, when Plaintiff was home, she kept to herself in her room. The previous day, August 6, 2008, Plaintiff met with a San Francisco Police Department officer, off-site from Conard co-op, regarding Plaintiff’s concerns that some of her property at Conard co-op had been stolen. That officer spent significant time with Plaintiff. Plaintiff gave her a key to the residence, and the officer went alone to Conard co-op to investigate Plaintiff’s missing property. That officer later testified in the criminal trial pertaining to the subject-incident that Plaintiff did not appear to be psychotic, a danger to herself or others, or unable to care for herself. That officer did not prepare a police report of the contact or of her investigation. (…) Mr. Hodge decided to make contact with Plaintiff on the day of the subject-incident, and knocked on the door to her room. Plaintiff’s door was locked. When Plaintiff did not respond to Mr. Hodge’s knocks, Mr. Hodge used a pass-key provided by the property manager, who was present, to unlock Plaintiff’s door from the outside. Mr. Hodge saw Plaintiff lying on her bed, next to the door, with a book laying on her chest. Plaintiff reacted to Mr. Hodge’s unwanted presence by yelling at him to get out of her room. According only to Mr. Hodge, Plaintiff allegedly jumped out of bed, told Mr. Hodge that he did not have a warrant authorizing his entry, and told Mr. Hodge that if he did not leave the room that she had a knife and would kill him. Plaintiff and Mr. Hodge did not have a good working relationship, and Mr. Hodge was aware that Plaintiff wanted little interaction with him. Although other witnesses were present, Mr. Hodge is the only person who heard Plaintiff make any type of alleged threat. Other witnesses present did not hear Plaintiff make any threat or claim to have a knife, and Plaintiff made no threat to anyone. (…) Plaintiff brandished no weapon at Mr. Hodge, and Mr. Hodge never saw any weapons in Plaintiff’s room. However, Mr. Hodge left Plaintiff’s room and slammed her door closed. Mr. Hodge decided to “5150” Plaintiff, so he called the police to request their help in detaining Plaintiff pursuant to a Welfare and Institutions section 5150 hold, in which a person may be detained against their will if certain criteria are met. Pursuant to section 5150, a peace officer or a designated member of a facility designated by the County may, upon probable cause, take or cause to be taken a person who, as a result of a mental disorder, is a danger to others, oneself, or gravely disabled, to an approved facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation. Although Mr. W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 7

18. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 Hodge reportedly possessed a card that authorized him to initiate a section 5150 hold, Plaintiff alleges that her insistence on Mr. Hodge leaving her room, in which she had a cognizable Fourth Amendment privacy interest, even if Plaintiff made a conditional threat to Mr. Hodge, which Plaintiff disputes, was insufficient basis to detain Plaintiff pursuant to section 5150. (…) Defendant Officer HOLDER responded to Mr. Hodge’s call to police. When she arrived at Conard co-op, she spoke with Mr. Hodge outside of the building. Unconvinced that Mr. Hodge had the authority to initiate an involuntary detention of Plaintiff pursuant to section 5150, Defendant Officer HOLDER called a superior officer to the scene. Defendant Officer REYNOLDS, a sergeant, responded to the scene, spoke with Mr. Hodge, observed his pink “5150 card” and a 5150 form Mr. Hodge had filled out. Although Defendant Officer REYNOLDS could not read much of Mr. Hodge’s illegible, handwritten 5150 form, she agreed to detain Plaintiff to evaluate her further for section 5150 detention based upon their discussion, which indicated that Plaintiff had been off her medication and purportedly threatened to stab or kill Mr. Hodge. Even assuming Mr. Hodge related the alleged conditional threat made by Plaintiff, Plaintiff alleges there was insufficient probable cause to believe that Plaintiff posed a sufficient danger to herself, others, or was gravely disabled, to detain her pursuant to section 5150, and that only a plainly incompetent police officer could have believed otherwise.(…) Mr. Hodge accompanied both Defendant Officers into Conard co-op and gave Defendant Officer REYNOLDS the master key to Conard co-op and the door to Plaintiff’s residence. Once inside Conard co-op, Mr. Hodge identified the door to Plaintiff’s unit and both Defendant Officers HOLDER and REYNOLDS approached the door to Plaintiff’s unit. Without any further information and without attempting to obtain a court-order or search warrant, Defendant Officer REYNOLDS told Defendant Officer HOLDER that the plan was for them to enter Plaintiff’s private residence. Defendant Officer REYNOLDS put the key into the lock on Plaintiff’s door and yelled “We are the police; we want to help you!” Plaintiff did not respond. Defendant Officer REYNOLDS then opened Plaintiff’s door and Plaintiff appeared to be lying on her bed. Plaintiff began to get up off her bed and told the officers that they did not have a search warrant and could not enter her room. Plaintiff also indicated that she had already called police. (…) When the defendant officers did not leave Plaintiff’s room, Plaintiff allegedly got off her bed, picked up a knife, and threatened the officers. Defendant Officers backed out of Plaintiff’s residence, and Plaintiff slammed the door closed on them. Plaintiff did not open the door to her room after that. (…) Defendant Officer HOLDER then called for backup on her police radio while Defendant Officer REYNOLDS continued to talk to Plaintiff through the closed door. Both Defendant Officers drew their firearms. Defendant Officer HOLDER directed radio dispatch to the correct address, and Defendant Officer REYNOLDS heard, over dispatch radio, that more officers were en-route to Plaintiff’s residence, along with a less-lethal unit. (…) Defendant Officer REYNOLDS requested that Officer HOLDER remove her pepper-spray because Officer REYNOLDS intended to gain access to Plaintiff’s room. Defendant Officer REYNOLDS tried to speak with Plaintiff and attempted to force Plaintiff’s door open. Defendant Officer HOLDER, who had a bit more physical heft than Officer REYNOLDS, volunteered to take over the forced-entry of Plaintiff’s door. Defendant Officer REYNOLDS asked Mr. Hodge to open the door to Conard co-op and let backup officers into the residence. Mr. Hodge left the immediate scene to open the front door for backup officers to enter the residence. (…) Defendant Officer HOLDER ensured that Plaintiff’s door was unlocked, but could not open Plaintiff’s door, which remained closed. Defendant Officer HOLDER hit the door with her shoulder several times while holding the doorknob. Eventually, Defendant Officer HOLDER forced the door open and observed Plaintiff several feet W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 8

19. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 from the door entry, with her back to the officer. Plaintiff allegedly held a knife in one of her hands, made a statement that she was going to “kill you,” and began walking toward Defendant Officers, who were one step into Plaintiff’s room. (…) Defendant Officer REYNOLDS discharged pepper-spray toward Plaintiff, who wore glasses, while Defendant Officer HOLDER backed out of Plaintiff’s room. Plaintiff allegedly walked toward Defendant Officers with a knife raised in her hand, and Defendant Officer HOLDER discharged her firearm at Plaintiff two to three times. Each shot struck Plaintiff. Defendant Officer REYNOLDS also shot Plaintiff two times, striking Plaintiff. Plaintiff fell forward and fell to the ground. All five shots struck Plaintiff’s body. (…) After Plaintiff fell to the ground, having been shot five times, Defendant Officer REYNOLDS discharged one final gunshot directly into the left temple of Plaintiff’s forehead. The gunshot exited through Plaintiff’s left cheek, and caused numerous facial fractures and injuries. Plaintiff posed no reasonable threat to anyone when Defendant Officer REYNOLDS fired this last gunshot directly into Plaintiff’s head. Miraculously, Plaintiff survived the shooting and attempted execution. (…) In total, Plaintiff suffered 14 gunshot wounds inflicted by Defendant Officers REYNOLDS and HOLDER, with the final gunshot wounds inflicted against Plaintiff’s forehead and face, after Plaintiff was on the ground and posed no threat. (…) Plaintiff fought the criminal charges filed against her, including one count of making criminal threats, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, and two counts of assault on a peace officer, through a jury trial that concluded on December 17, 2008. Plaintiff was acquitted of making criminal threats. A mistrial was declared on the remaining counts when jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict. Plaintiff is informed and believes that of the 12-person jury, 11 jurors were in favor of Plaintiff’s acquittal on the charges of assault with a deadly weapon and assault on a peace officer. (…) Plaintiffs further allege that the shooting of Plaintiff was the proximate result of Defendant CITY’s failure to reasonably train their police officers in the proper and reasonable use of force and in forcing warrantless entries into residences without sufficient emergency or exigent circumstances. Plaintiffs further allege that these substantial failures reflect Defendant CITY’s policies implicitly ratifying and/or authorizing the use of excessive force by its police officers and the failure to reasonably train police officers employed by Defendant CITY in making warrantless entries into private residences. (…) On June 6, 2006, more than two years before the subject-incident, two San Francisco Police Department officers shot and killed an unarmed man, Asa Sullivan, after a third San Francisco Police officer forced a warrantless entry, without exigency of emergency circumstances, into 2 Garces Drive. Plaintiff alleges that although Defendant CITY was on notice of its deficiencies in training officers regarding warrantless entries into residences, Defendant CITY failed to take remedial measures in training its officers in warrantless entry into residences, proximately causing the near-fatal shooting of Plaintiff TERESA SHEEHAN. In addition, as in the instant shooting of Plaintiff, officers at 2 Garces Drive on June 6, 2006 were aware that a less-lethal weapons unit was en route to the residence. Instead of waiting for the less-lethal unit, officers at 2 Garces Drive ignored advice from other officers to stand down, and insisted on escalating a standoff with an unarmed person into a lethal force shooting. Teresa Sheehan Complaint, Scribd.: https://www.scribd.com/document/241408998/Teresa-Sheehan-Complaint The fact that officers responding to Mr. Hodge’s call may have lacked adequate training is consistent with studies showing that police officers frequently feel inadequately trained to respond to such situations. This is so even when as is true in San Francisco, providing assistance W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 9

20. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 in detaining and transporting individuals with mental illness who are dangerous to self or other or gravely disabled (the standard for civil commitment in California and most States) is a police function. As a result, police officers report that such calls are challenging and difficult to manage. The lack of adequate mental health training for police officers – just one critical tool for responding to individuals in crisis – is particularly problematic because traditional police tactics, such as verbal commands, displays of authority, and threats of physical force, can escalate already sensitive encounters with individuals with mental illness. That escalation, in turn, can cause individuals, including those with mental illness, to present a more threatening demeanor, which may elicit yet more forceful police responses. To assist in analyzing and remedying the problems caused by the application of traditional criminal justice system approaches – and in recognition of the role of law enforcement in identifying individuals with mental illness and diverting them to treatment – mental health professionals and policy makers have developed a framework known as the Sequential Intercept Model. A key premise of the Sequential Intercept Model is that there are untapped improvements in public health and safety – and potential resource savings – that can result from cooperation between law enforcement and mental health professionals. The Sequential Intercept Model focuses on improving outcomes in part through cooperation between law enforcement and mental health professionals. It identifies five points of “intercept” where the collaboration between law enforcement and mental health professionals can be used to identify and divert to treatment individuals with serious mental illnesses. These points of potential intervention range from initial encounters with police, through courts and jails, to prisons and rehabilitative facilities, including points of intervention available to community supervising entities such as probation and parole. Public entities in several States have used the Sequential Intercept Model to develop interventions for individuals with mental illnesses at various stages of the criminal justice process, but a more systematic approach would foster more comprehensive interventions. These interventions include strategies for screening and assessment to enhance identification of behavioral health conditions, development of closer coordination with community service providers, and development of policies, protocols, and memoranda of agreement to enhance the capacity to meet the needs of individuals with mental illness and direct them toward treatment when appropriate and safe. Because entrance into the criminal justice system starts with a police encounter, the initial point of contact between police and an individual with mental illness is the best opportunity to identify serious mental illnesses and to ensure that an individual with such a disability can be diverted into treatment. Intervention at the earliest stage is also most critical in part because it is most cost effective. When a social worker seeks assistance from law enforcement to bring an individual with mental illness into custody for temporary civil commitment, there is often no imminent threat to public safety. Such a call for assistance is equivalent to a call for medical help, seeking emergency treatment for what is a psychiatric problem. When officers with inadequate training, including because of an absence of policies and procedures to guide them, respond to such a call, an opportunity for “intercept” is lost. When such an encounter leads to incarceration, what began as a call for more intensive treatment ends with the individual being denied effective treatment interventions and instead being punished. Furthermore, responding to such a situation using traditional police tactics may put all parties, including the police officers, in danger. In particular, hundreds of individuals with mental illness are shot and killed by police officers every year. In this case, police were dispatched to transport Ms. Sheehan safely to a medical facility where she could receive treatment. This point of contact between the police and Ms. Sheehan therefore represented not W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 10

21. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 merely a lost point of intercept but rather a step backward. Ms. Sheehan did not need an intercept; she had committed no crime. She needed emergency medical care. (…) When the police arrived at Ms. Sheehan’s group home, she was in her own room; she did not engage in any unlawful behavior; until approached by her social worker, she had not threatened anyone; and there was no indication that she was suicidal. This fact pattern – no crime, no immediate threat – represents a significant percentage of all police encounters with individuals with mental illness. Police injuries during encounters with such individuals may be no more frequent than injuries during encounters with others, and, when they do occur, rarely require medical attention.(…) In this case, police were called for the purpose of bringing respondent in for treatment; in other circumstances, police officers may face questions about whether an individual who has been arrested for a non-violent crime – vagrancy, disturbing the peace, public intoxication – may be exhibiting symptoms of severe mental illnesses such that treatment, rather than criminal justice system intervention, is called for. Training and development of linkages to appropriate community mental health resources can assist officers in such situations. For example, in Baltimore, Maryland, Baltimore Crisis Response, Inc. provides free mental health crisis beds for individuals who do not meet the criteria for involuntary commitment but who nevertheless need treatment and are unable to receive it elsewhere. In San Antonio, Texas, community resources were developed for a specialized drop-off center that police can use to give individuals with mental health or substance abuse needs access to treatment providers in an efficient manner. Police officers who are aware of such programs can avoid jailing individuals who are homeless for minor violations caused by symptoms of mental illness. In 2011, the Department of Justice reached a settlement agreement with the State of Delaware under the ADA providing, among other things, MCTs and crisis walk-in centers, which are 24-hour “community-based psychiatric and counseling services to people experiencing a mental health crisis,” with specific accommodations made for police referrals or drop-offs. The programs described above have not provided any panacea to the deep problems caused by insufficient mental health services and the responsibilities borne by police officers in responding to mental health crises. All such programs, to be most effective, require continuing training, review for best practices, funding, and oversight. And no one program will solve the problem of mental illness in the criminal justice system or work for all police departments. (…) It is especially clear in the context of this case that petitioners were providing a “benefit” to respondent when they sought to take her into custody for involuntary hospitalization. The statute under which petitioners sought to take respondent into custody authorizes temporary civil commitment when “any person, as a result of a mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150(a). Among the reasons for civil commitment under this statute – and one of the reasons invoked by respondent’s social worker – is to provide aid to an individual who cannot care for herself as a result of a mental illness. See, e.g., Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 426 (1979) (characterizing civil commitment as an adjunct to “providing care” to individuals with mental illness). Accordingly, this Court should start from the uncontested premise that the ADA applies to arrests and requires reasonable accommodations in that context. (…) Respondent was, moreover, a “qualified individual” within the meaning of Title II of the ADA. In the circumstances of this case – like many others – respondent was subject to arrest not because of any immediate danger she posed to the public but because of concern that she was gravely disabled and might pose such a danger if untreated. There was – at least on the view of the facts most favorable to respondent – no reason that petitioners could not have provided a reasonable accommodation for transport her to a medical W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 11

22. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 facility. Petitioners argue that, because of “the danger Sheehan posed to the officers . . . at the time the officers re-opened her door,” she was not “qualified” to receive any reasonable accommodation. Pet. Br. 17; see id. at 19-23. But that argument improperly narrows the focus of the reasonable-accommodation inquiry, as the Ninth Circuit properly recognized. In a case involving involuntary civil detention and transportation of an individual who poses no immediate threat, the reasonable-accommodation inquiry should examine the entire course of the encounter between law enforcement and the individual with a disability. Application of ordinary police arrest procedures in such a case would often be inappropriate, and the failure to employ techniques appropriate to dealing with an individual with a known mental illness may be unreasonable. To the extent a public entity fails to employ such techniques, such failure may constitute precisely the sort of discrimination against individuals with disability that the ADA was intended to address. Applying petitioners’ narrow focus would improperly deprive qualified individuals of the statute’s protection. As noted above, research shows that ordinary police techniques, including threats of physical force, can render encounters with individuals with mental illness more dangerous to those individuals and to the arresting officer. Unnecessarily subjecting individuals with mental illness to such risks is a clear example of a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation and therefore discrimination within the meaning of the ADA. And an individual should not lose the protection of the statute because a failure to provide reasonable accommodation triggers the very reaction that the reasonable accommodation was designed to prevent. Amicus NLC argues (at 14-15) that knowing of respondent’s mental illness gave the officers no additional ability to predict whether Ms. Sheehan would react violently under the circumstances. That contention is hard to understand on the record of this case – the officers had time to consult with the social worker on the scene and develop an approach that would respond to Ms. Sheehan’s psychiatric needs without escalating the situation. In any event, whether, in any given case, circumstances call for any particular accommodation will necessarily depend on the facts. Where there is evidence that a public entity failed to follow established procedures for effectuating involuntary civil commitment, a jury might reasonably conclude that police officers have not provided the accommodations required by the ADA. Petitioners argue (at 18, 28) that they had no obligation to provide reasonable accommodations for Ms. Sheehan’s mental illness because she posed a “directthreat” to their safety. For the reasons explained above, however, petitioners’ argument rests on improperly restricting the focus of the reasonable accommodation inquiry. The obligation to provide reasonable accommodations arose once police were called to transport an individual with a serious mental illness to a facility for treatment, before she represented a direct threat. Moreover, even when a “direct threat” is present, the obligation to provide a“reasonable accommodation” exists as long as policecould allay the threat through reasonable accommodations. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.139(b) (“In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public entity must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain . . . whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk.”). Research and the experience of mental health professionals indicate that there are reasonable accommodations police departments can employ during encounters with individuals with mental illness and that those accommodations can mitigate the risk caused by mental illnesses. To the extent any threat Ms. Sheehan posed could have been mitigated through better training or direct involvement of mental health professionals, Ms. Sheehan did not pose a “direct threat” under W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 12

23. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 Department of Justice regulations. Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Council on Disability in Support of Respondent – City and County of San Francisco, California, et al v Terersa Sheehan, NCD.: https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015 xiThe Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., requires police officers to provide reasonable accommodations for individuals with mental illnesses at the time of arrest. None of the parties asks this Court to conclude otherwise. Encounters with individuals with mental illnesses, many of which involve either no criminal conduct or only nuisance crimes that may reflect the individuals’ illnesses, are an everyday part of law enforcement. Preserving the ADA’s protection in those encounters is close to the heart of the statute’s non-discrimination mandate. The judgment whether a public entity has provided a reasonable accommodation –and whether an individual is “qualified” within the meaning of the ADA – should take into account the entire encounter between law enforcement and an individual with a mental illness. When police are called to detain and transport an individual for involuntary hospitalization, there is an opportunity to provide reasonable accommodations. And where the alleged failure to make such reasonable accommodations – for example, to provide appropriate training or to employ trained personnel using established protocols – is the partial cause of threatening or violent behavior in an individual suffering from severe mental illness, that individual should not be deprived of the statute’s protection.(…) The obligation to provide reasonable accommodations for individuals with mental illness at the time of arrest imposes no unfair burden on public entities. Established approaches to training police officers and implementing programs and procedures designed to reduce the risk to individuals subject to arrest and to law enforcement have been reported to improve law enforcement outcomes without imposing significant additional costs on public authorities. (…) The Ninth Circuit determined that “Title II [of the ADA] applies to arrests.” Pet. App. 43. We do not understand any party or amicus before this Court to disagree with that proposition, and it is correct. The ADA is a broadly worded non-discrimination statute. See PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 675 (2001) (“[o]ne of the Act’s most impressive strengths has been identified as its comprehensive character” making it “a milestone on the path to a more decent, tolerant, progressive society”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Title II of the Act, which covers public services, provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. “Discrimination includes a failure to reasonablyaccommodate a person’s disability.” Pet. App. 41. Binding regulations adopted by the Department of Justice broadly require that “a public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability,” unless such modifications would fundamentally change the government activity. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7); cf. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) (defining discrimination for purposes of Title III of the ADA to include the “failure to make reasonable modifications”). Bringing an individual into custody constitutes a “service, program, or activity of a public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132; see also United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 154 (2006) (“‘public entity’” includes “‘any State or local government’” and “‘any department agency or other instrumentality of a State’”) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)) (alteration in original). Moreover, the manner in which an arresting officer treats an arrestee or suspect falls comfortably within the broad meaning of W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 13

24. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 “benefit.” This Court has previously construed the ADA to apply to prisons, holding that such institutions “fall squarely within the statutory definition of ‘public entity.’” Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998). In so holding, the Court noted that prisons provide inmates with “‘benefits’ of ‘programs, services, or activities,’ as those terms are ordinarily understood.” Id. That law enforcement provides “benefits” within the meaning of the ADA in the context of effectuating an arrest follows from Yeskey.(…) Applying the ADA to arrests of individuals known to be suffering from mental illness is of surpassing importance precisely because encounters between law enforcement and individuals with mental illness are such an integral part of police work. See supra pp. 4-8. Requiring state and local governments to provide reasonable accommodations for individuals with mental illness does not impose an unfair burden. What is called for, after all, is reasonable accommodation. Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Council on Disability in Support of Respondent – City and County of San Francisco, California, et al v Terersa Sheehan,NCD.: https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015 xiiCity and County of San Francisco, California et al v Sheehan, Supreme Court of the United States.: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1412_0pl1.pdf xiiiU.S House passes most ambitious police reform effort in decades; The Guardian.: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/03/george-floyd-justice-in-policing-act-us- house-democrats Sweeping George Floyd police reform bill stalls as talks collapse, The Guardian.: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/22/us-police-reform-bill-congress-bipartisan- talks This bill addresses a wide range of policies and issues regarding policing practices and law enforcement accountability. It increases accountability for law enforcement misconduct, restricts the use of certain policing practices, enhances transparency and data collection, and establishes best practices and training requirements. The bill enhances existing enforcement mechanisms to remedy violations by law enforcement. Among other things, it does the following: lowers the criminal intent standard—from willful to knowing or reckless—to convict a law enforcement officer for misconduct in a federal prosecution, limits qualified immunity as a defense to liability in a private civil action against a law enforcement officer, and grants administrative subpoena power to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in pattern-or- practice investigations. W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 14

25. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 It establishes a framework to prevent and remedy racial profiling by law enforcement at the federal, state, and local levels. It also limits the unnecessary use of force and restricts the use of no-knock warrants, chokeholds, and carotid holds. The bill creates a national registry—the National Police Misconduct Registry—to compile data on complaints and records of police misconduct. It also establishes new reporting requirements, including on the use of force, officer misconduct, and routine policing practices (e.g., stops and searches). Finally, it directs DOJ to create uniform accreditation standards for law enforcement agencies and requires law enforcement officers to complete training on racial profiling, implicit bias, and the duty to intervene when another officer uses excessive force. George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, Congress.: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1280 xivDistrict Attorney Chesa Boudin’s office announced homicide charges today against San Francisco Police Officer Kenneth Cha following the 2017 shooting of Sean Moore. Moore, who was unarmed, died in 2020 from his injuries. The prosecution marks the second time in San Francisco history that the District Attorney has filed homicide charges against an on-duty police officer. The first was in late 2020, when Boudin charged rookie officer Christopher Samavoa for shooting dead unarmed Keita O’Neil from out the window of his police car.DA files homicide charges against SFPD officer in shooting death of Sean Moore, Mission Local.: https://missionlocal.org/2021/11/da-files-homicide-charges-against-sfpd-officer-in-shooting- death-of-sean-moore/ xvSan Francisco Police Officer Kenneth Cha today pleaded not guilty Tuesday to homicide charges, nearly five years after he shot Sean Moore, a schizophrenic, on the steps of Moore’s own home, and two years after Moore’s death from those injuries. Cha did not appear in court Tuesday morning, but his attorney, Scott Burrell, entered the plea on his behalf as Moore’s mother and brother looked on. Meanwhile, about 20 protesters dressed in black stood on the courthouse steps at 850 Bryant St., carrying signs and chanting in support of Moore’s family. (…) Burrell confirmed that Cha is still employed by the San Francisco Police Department, but no longer has his department-issued firearm. (…) Cha and another officer arrived at Moore’s home in the Oceanview neighborhood on Jan. 6, 2017, responding to a noise complaint from a neighbor. Moore, who had earlier mental-health episodes, was allegedly making noise through the walls. Moore and the officers ended up arguing for a few minutes while Moore stayed behind the gate of his home, asking the officers to leave and saying he did not violate the restraining order his neighbor had against him. (…) The incident was caught on the officers’ body cameras and, as it escalated, Cha pepper-sprayed Moore. The video footage shows officers shouting for Moore to come outside, saying he is under arrest and that they will get him a medic for the pepper spray. When Moore eventually complies, Cha’s partner hits W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 15

26. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 Moore with a baton and Moore appears to strike back against the officer, but he has no weapon. The officer falls down the steps, and Cha then runs up the stairs and shoots Moore twice. In all, eight minutes lapsed between the time the officers arrived and the shooting. Kenneth Cha, officer who killed Sean Moore, pleads not guilty, Mission Local.: https://missionlocal.org/2021/11/police-officer-pleads-not-guilty-in-sean-moores-shooting-death/ xviFreddie Gray, Info Please.: https://www.infoplease.com/people/who2-biography/freddie-gray xviiA court filing from the day of Gray’s arrest showed he was charged with illegally carrying a knife, which an officer said was discovered inside one of Gray’s pockets. However Rawlings- Blake said: “We know that having a knife is not necessarily a crime, not necessarily a probable cause to search someone.” Billy Murphy Jr, an attorney for Gray’s family, said earlier on Monday the knife charge did not explain why Gray was chased and searched. “How did they have x-ray vision or any knowledge of that?” Murphy said. “If you arrest a man illegally the evidence you find afterwards is not admissible. There’s always the temptation –because you’re dealing with human beings –that they’re going to cover this up in a way that makes them look faultless.” Rodriguez confirmed Gray “gave up without the use of force” and while one officer unholstered his Taser, he did not deploy it during the arrest. Footage recorded by a nearby city surveillance camera, which was played at Monday’s press conference, did not appear to shed light on what happened. Cellphone video of Gray’s arrest released last week showed him being dragged into the police van by officers. While he was shouting in apparent pain and moving his head, at least one of his legs appeared limp. The video did not show his initial treatment by police. Rawlings-Blake said there was no footage recorded inside the van. Police said the other prisoner in the back of the van had been interviewed. An “independent review board” is to be convened by police chiefs to look into the incident and report back on whether procedures were followed.An account of the incident in the court filing, written by an officer Garrett Miller, said that after being “arrested without force or incident,” during his transportation to the police’s western district headquarters Gray “suffered a medical emergency and was immediately transported to Shock Trauma via medic.” Six Baltimore officers suspended over police-van death of Freddie Gray, The Guardian.: https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/2015/apr/20/baltimore-officers-suspended-death-freddie-gray Freddie Gray's death on April 19 leaves many unanswered questions. But it is clear that when Gray was arrested in West Baltimore on the morning of April 12, he was struggling to walk. By the time he arrived at the police station a half hour later, he was unable to breathe or talk, suffering from wounds that would kill him. (…) Gray died Sunday from spinal injuries. Baltimore authorities say they're investigating how the 25-year-old was hurt—a somewhat W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 16

27. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 perverse notion, given that it was while he was in police custody, and hidden from public view, that he apparently suffered injury. How it happened remains unknown. It's even difficult to understand why officers arrested Gray in the first place. But with protesters taking to the streets of Baltimore since Gray's death on Sunday, the incident falls into a line of highly publicized, fatal encounters between black men and the police. The Mysterious Death of Freddie Gray, The Atlantic.: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-mysterious-death-of-freddie- gray/391119/ The Baltimore Sun found that police missed the opportunity to examine some evidence that could have shed light on events. For example, by the time police canvassed one neighborhood looking for video from security cameras, a convenience store camera pointed at a key intersection had already taped over its recordings of that morning. The Sun also found that accounts from residents conflicted with the official version of events, including a police account that Gray's arrest was made “without force or incident.” The 45-minute mystery of Freddie Gray’s death, The Baltimore Sun.: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-gray-ticker-20150425- story.html#page=1 xviiiPolice Commissioner Anthony Batts told reporters there are no excuses for the fact that Gray was not buckled in as he was transported to a police station. Five days after Gray’s death and amid ongoing protests, police officials acknowledged mistakes were made during and after his arrest. Police: We failed to get Freddie Gray timely medical care after arrest, CNN.: https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/24/us/baltimore-freddie-gray-death/index.html The sources quoted by the Washington-based station said the medical examiner had determined Gray's death was caused by a catastrophic injury after he slammed into the back of the police transport van while inside it, “apparently breaking his neck; a head injury he sustained matches a bolt in the back of the van.” The station said it was unclear what caused Gray to slam into the back of the van and whether Gray caused the injury. An official in the state's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner wouldn't comment to CNN on the report, citing an ongoing investigation. The official said the autopsy report on Gray could be delivered to the State's Attorney Office “as soon as tomorrow or early next week.” Staff members were still doing examinations Thursday, the official said. The completion and delivery of the final report will depend on how quickly that evaluation is completed and compiled. While it could be sent Friday, there is still the possibility it won't be ready until early next week, the official said. How Gray was injured and whether police are liable for his death are questions now in the hands of the state's attorney for Baltimore City. Report: Freddie Gray sustained injury in back of police van, CNN.: https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/30/us/baltimore-freddie-gray-death-investigation/ Four days after Gray was injured in police custody, Baltimore Police officials released a timeline for the incident, which had just three stops – the pickup on Presbury Street, a second stop just one block away, and the Western District Police Station. The timeline also revealed W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 17

28. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 what time police called for an ambulance to come to the station: 30 minutes elapsed between the van’s departure from Stop Two and the call for a medic. But the police station was just four blocks away, and Freddie was allegedly found unconscious when they open the doors. So, what had happened during that half hour? Why did it take so long to call a medic? That was the big mystery at the heart of the two-week-long police investigation.Except it wasn’t a mystery to investigators –or it shouldn’t have been, anyway. Each of these three stops on the original timeline was given it’s own specific timestamp, in hours, minutes and seconds, but there was no explanation for where they came from. It turns out the timestamps came directly from calls between the involved officers and police dispatch, which means investigators were using that audio to figure out the timeline. As of April 16th, police were accounting for just three stops – not the eventual six.All of the dispatch audio related to Freddie Gray’s arrest and transport was eventually played in court – there are calls pertaining to five of the stops. That means investigators knew about Stop Four, where Officer William Porter had responded to Goodson’s dispatch request for a prisoner check. And they certainly knew about the van’s fifth stop to pick up a second prisoner, because Goodson was clearly heard alerting the dispatcher that he was on his way. Instead of including all of the stops they knew about on their timeline, BPD kept quiet about Stop Four and Stop Five, leaving that mysterious 30-minute gap instead. Death of Freddie Gray: 5 Things You Didn’t Know. Rolling Stone.: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture- features/death-of-freddie-gray-5-things-you-didnt-know-129327/ xixGray is not the first person to come out of a Baltimore police wagon with serious injuries. Relatives of Dondi Johnson Sr., who was left a paraplegic after a 2005 police van ride, won a $7.4 million verdict against police officers. A year earlier, Jeffrey Alston was awarded $39 million by a jury after he became paralyzed from the neck down as the result of a van ride. Others have also received payouts after filing lawsuits. For some, such injuries have been inflicted by what is known as a "rough ride" — an "unsanctioned technique" in which police vans are driven to cause "injury or pain" to unbuckled, handcuffed detainees, former city police officer Charles J. Key testified as an expert five years ago in a lawsuit over Johnson's subsequent death.As daily protests continue in the streets of Baltimore, authorities are trying to determine how Gray was injured, and their focus is on the 30-minute van ride that followed his arrest. "It's clear what happened, happened inside the van," Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said Monday at a news conference. Christine Abbott, a 27-year-old assistant librarian at the Johns Hopkins University, is suing city officers in federal court, alleging that she got such a ride in 2012. According to the suit, officers cuffed Abbott's hands behind her back, threw her into a police van, left her unbuckled and "maniacally drove" her to the Northern District police station, "tossing [her] around the interior of the police van." "They were braking really short so that I would slam against the wall, and they were taking really wide, fast turns," Abbott said in an interview that mirrored allegations in her lawsuit. "I couldn't brace myself. I was terrified." The lawsuit states she suffered unspecified injuries from the arrest and the ride. "You feel like a piece of cargo," she added. "You don't feel human." The van's driver stated in a deposition that Abbott was not buckled into her seat belt, but the officers have denied driving recklessly. Freddie Gray not the first to come out of Baltimore police van with serious injuries, The Baltimore Sun.: W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 18

29. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-gray-rough-rides-20150423- story.html#page=1 xxFreddie Gray suffered a single "high-energy injury" to his neck and spine — most likely caused when the police van in which he was riding suddenly decelerated, according to a copy of the autopsy report obtained by The Baltimore Sun. The state medical examiner's office concluded that Gray's death could not be ruled an accident, and was instead a homicide, because officers failed to follow safety procedures “through acts of omission.” Though Gray was loaded into the van on his belly, the medical examiner surmised that he may have gotten to his feet and was thrown into the wall during an abrupt change in direction. He was not belted in, but his wrists and ankles were shackled, putting him “at risk for an unsupported fall during acceleration or deceleration of the van.” The medical examiner compared Gray's injury to those seen in shallow-water diving incidents.(…) In concluding his death was a homicide, Assistant Medical Examiner Carol H. Allan wrote that it was "not an unforeseen event that a vulnerable individual was injured during operation of the vehicle, and that without prompt medical attention, the injury would prove fatal." (…) “Reportedly, Mr. Gray was still yelling and shaking the van,” the medical examiner wrote. “He was removed from the van and placed on the ground in a kneeling position, facing the van doors, while ankle cuffs were placed, and then slid onto the floor of the van, belly down and head first, reportedly still verbally and physically active.”Autopsy of Freddie Gray shows ‘high-energy’ impact, The Baltimore Sun.: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-freddie-gray-autopsy-20150623-story.html xxiProsecutors dropped all charges Wednesday against three Baltimore police officers accused in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray, bringing to an end one of the highest-profile criminal cases in the city's history with zero convictions. Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby acknowledged the long odds of securing convictions in the remaining cases following the acquittals of three other officers on similar though more serious charges. In a hearing Wednesday meant to start the trial of Officer Garrett Miller, prosecutors dropped their cases against him, Officer William Porter and Sgt. Alicia White. Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams, who had acquitted the other officers, was expected to preside over the remaining trials as well. After the most recent acquittal and “a great deal of thought and prayer,” Mosby said, she resolved to drop the remaining charges. Mosby stood by her decision to bring the charges, pointing out that the medical examiner's office ruled Gray's death a homicide and that it's her job as the city's top prosecutor to seek justice. (…) Gray's death has reverberated across Baltimore and the country at a time of national debate over the deaths of young black men in altercations with police. Gray, 25, died of severe neck injuries suffered in the back of a police van. He'd been shackled and handcuffed, but not secured in a seat belt. Mostly peaceful protests erupted in Baltimore and lasted for days following his death. Then, on the day of his funeral, rioting, looting and arson broke out — and images of Baltimore in chaos were broadcast to an international audience. Mosby charged the six Baltimore officers days later with offenses ranging from second-degree depraved-heart murder W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 19

30. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 to manslaughter, reckless endangerment and misconduct in office. The case pitted Mosby against police, and their verbal sparring Wednesday raised questions about their ability to cooperate going forward. The Fraternal Order of Police accused Mosby of pursuing a malicious and wrong-headed prosecution, while she accused police investigators of sabotage. The case proved costly for the city. The state's attorney's office and Police Department, which bought riot gear and paid officers’ overtime in anticipation of protests, spent an estimated $7.4 million on the trials, city officials said Wednesday. In addition, the city reached a $6.4 million settlement last year with Gray's family. Charges dropped, Freddie Gray cases concluded with zero convictions against officers. The Baltimore Sun.: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci- miller-pretrial-motions-20160727-story.html The Baltimore Police Department’s Force Investigation Team failed to follow standard protocols around interviewing witnesses and evidence collection in the immediate aftermath of Gray’s injury. For instance, Officer Zachary Novak – who both loaded Gray into the van and found him unconscious later that morning – was given power over evidence collection, interviewing witnesses, and writing reports on day one. As a major witness, Novak’s had a conflict of interest and he should not have been given investigatory powers. He later received immunity from prosecution. In another possible example, instead of being treated as a crime scene, sources close to the case have told us that the transport van was almost immediately put back into service. This possibility was discussed during the trials, when a witness from the crime lab was unable to trace the chain of evidence for the van all the way back to the day of the incident. In addition, other expert testimony revealed that days, even weeks, went by before standard evidence collection procedures occurred, like photographing the inside of the van, testing for fingerprints and DNA, or collecting blood samples. The prosecution, meanwhile, suffered from the same issue that we see again and again in wrongful conviction cases: tunnel vision. In court, they avoided any evidence that complicated their story that Goodson, the van driver, had given Gray a “roughride” between Stop Two and Stop Four. They accepted the unreliable CCTV footage as proof of Stops Three and Four, while ignoring the witnesses who saw brutality being used against Gray at Stops One and Two. Despite being publicly at war with the police department over how the investigation was handled, the state’s case depended too much on the evidence police had collected – including statements from the defendants and other involved officers –instead of what they hadn’t. Prosecutors hinged their narrative on the findings of the Medical Examiner, Dr. Carol Allan. Because Freddie Gray’s fatal injury resembled a “shallow diving accident,” Allan ruled out the possibility of it happening during his arrest, when Officer Miller allegedly pressed his knee into Gray’s neck. But Allan never considered the possibility of a fatal injury at Stop Two, where witness Jacqueline Jackson saw Gray thrown head first into the van. That’s because Dr. Allan was never given statements from civilian witnesses. Instead, she was only provided with statements made by the defendants and other police officers – and since they claimed that Gray was violently shaking the van, Allan determined he couldn’t have been injured during Stop Two. But these police accounts are contradicted by statements from other witnesses as well as the W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 20

31. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 CCTV footage. While Mosby’s team fought hard in court, it’s their decisions out of court that call into question their pursuit of the truth. Death of Freddie Gray: 5 Things You Didn’t Know, Rolling Stone.: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/death-of-freddie-gray-5- things-you-didnt-know-129327/ xxiiBaltimore prosecutors shed new light on their rationale for some of the charges against the officers involved in the death of Freddie Gray, saying in a court filing that Gray had been illegally detained before officers found a knife in his pocket. In announcing the charges this month, State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby said that the folding knife, which police initially described as a switchblade, was not illegal under state law, and so Gray should not have been arrested. Defense attorneys for the officers who were charged with falsely arresting Gray, 25, have said prosecutors overlooked city law, which they say forbids possession of such a knife. They have used the distinction to argue that the case against the officers was rushed and flawed. In a response filed Monday, Chief Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow wrote that Gray was detained "well before the arresting officers knew he possessed a knife." The often-stinging 11- page rebuttal comes as prosecutors are asking a judge to impose a gag order on the participants in the case. A judge has not ruled on the request.Mosby’s office: Defense attacks in Gray case ‘like pinball on machine far past ‘TILT’. The Baltimore Sun.: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-freddie-gray-prosecutors-respond- 20150519-story.html#page=1 The Baltimore Police Department waited until the day after Freddie Gray died to publicly disclose that he had been arrested for possession of an illegal switchblade. But when State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced the charges against the six police officers, she claimed, “The knife was not a switchblade and is lawful under Maryland law.” (…) Our investigation found that Mosby was right. Pictures and videos of the knife, released just after the trials concluded, show a type of legal knife known as an “assisted opener” not a switchblade under any interpretation of Baltimore City or Maryland State law. The distinction between these types of knives is clearly established by the federal definition of a switchblade, by every knife expert we consulted and by countless retailers, which sell assisted opener knives legally inside and outside of Baltimore City. Death of Freddie Gray: 5 Things You Didn’t Know. Rolling Stone.: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/death-of-freddie-gray-5-things-you-didnt- know-129327/ xxiiiFederal Officials Decline Prosecution in the Death of Freddie Gray, Department of Justice (DOJ).: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-officials-decline-prosecution-death-freddie-gray xxivToday, we announce the outcome of the Department of Justice’s investigation of the Baltimore City Police Department (BPD). at the request of the City of Baltimore and BPD, the Department of Justice concludes that After engaging in a thorough investigation, initiated W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 21

32. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 there is reasonable cause to believe that BPD engages in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the Constitution or federal law. BPD engages in a pattern or practice of: (1) making unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests; (2) using enforcement strategies that produce severe and unjustified disparities in the rates of stops, searches and arrests of African Americans; (3) using excessive force; and (4) retaliating against people engaging in constitutionally-protected expression. This pattern or practice is driven by systemic deficiencies in BPD’s policies, training, supervision, and accountability structures that fail to equip officers with the tools they need to police effectively and within the bounds of the federal law. Investigation of the Baltimore City Police Department. U.S Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.: https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/883296/download xxv Federal Communications Commission (FCC).: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC- 372303A1.pdf xxviHannity Challenges Hillary Clinton to Sue Fox News for Defamation After Her ‘Actual Malice’ Claims: ‘Bring It On’ The Wrap.: https://www.thewrap.com/sean-hannity-hillary- clintons-malice-fox-news/ xxvii USA v Michael A. Sussman. Criminal Case No. 21 – 582. Document Cloud.: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21208256-john-durham-sussmann-filing-21122 xxviiiUSA v Michael A. Sussman. Criminal Case No. 21 – 582. Document Cloud.: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21217929/sussmann-response.pdf xxixCongresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has done it. No, I don't just mean becoming the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. I'm talking something potentially even more remarkable. She's become the key topic of conversation for Fox News commentators. In fact, President Trump's favorite network has what I'd like to refer to as “Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez derangement syndrome.” They can't stop talking everything Ocasio-Cortez, from her choice of footwear to the type of apartment she can afford to the alleged impending doom she presents for America. Fox News has found a new ‘villain’ in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, CNN.: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/25/opinions/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-fox-news-obsession- obeidallah/index.html W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 22

33. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 The Fox News host Tucker Carlson attacked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Friday night, claiming the US congresswoman was not a woman of colour. “She’s a rich entitled white lady,” he said. In return, the New York Democrat, popularly known as AOC, said: “This is the type of stuff you say when your name starts with a P and ends with dejo.” Dictionary.com defines pendejo as “a mildly vulgar insult for ‘asshole’ or ‘idiot’ in Spanish”. “Once again,” Ocasio-Cortez added, “the existence of a wife or daughters doesn’t make a man good. And this one is basura.” Basura is Spanish for “trash”. She also accused Carlson of sexual harassment. Ocasio-Cortez’s mother is from Puerto Rico, her father from the Bronx. She has described herself as a woman of colour. AOC calls Tucker Carlson ‘trash’ for saying she is not a woman of colour, The Guardian.: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/19/aoc- tucker-carlson-ocasio-cortez-fox-news-woman-of-colour xxxFor the curious, in Latinx culture children take *both* their parents‘ names. It’s not a “progressive, new thing.” It’s just how some names work. PR hyphenates, others mark differently. Your last name = the families that came together to make you. AOC is also fine though (…) My last name is Ocasio-Cortez. Full stop. That’s my name. No, you can’t say “Cortez.” I’ve never used that in my life. “Cortez” is referring to someone else. Even if they‘re trying to be rude + wrong, my dad’s last name was Ocasio anyway. (His name was hyphenated too, though.) (…) By the way: Fox News likes to say my name (incorrectly) as “Cortez,” which I can only imagine is bc that sounds more ‘stereotypically’ Hispanic + probably incites more ‘anxiety’ for them. Pro Tip: My last name is not “Cortez,” just as theirs isn’t “Ingra” or “Carl” or “Hann.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter.: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1108534032688652288 xxxiJudge Jef Rakoff, the judge overseeing former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, said Monday afternoon that he will dismiss the suit, ruling that Palin’s team did not prove a key element of its case. Rakoff's ruling came while the jury is deliberating over a verdict -- and Rakoff said he will allow the jury to continue deliberating and to reach a verdict, and will dismiss the case once it has done so. Rakoff presented his findings -- a clear round-one win for The Times -- with an eye toward an inevitable appeals process. The judge said Palin did not prove “actual malice,” which is the standard her legal team had to meet in her defamation case. The landmark 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan case specifies that public figures who sue for defamation must prove that the offender knew the claim was false or showed "reckless disregard" for the truth. Judge in Sarah Palin’s defamation suit against New York Times says he will dismiss case. CNN.: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/14/media/sarah- palin-new-york-times-case-dismissed/index.html The New York Times has prevailed in defending itself against a defamation lawsuit brought by Sarah Palin after jurors found she had not proven her case. The jury of nine, which had been deliberating since Friday afternoon, found the Times not liable for defamation against Palin. W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 23

34. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 Unbeknownst to them, during deliberations, Judge Jed Rakoff ruled that Palin's attorneys did not prove a key element of their case, and that he would set aside the jury's verdict should it have found for Palin. After the jury delivered its unanimous verdict Tuesday, Judge Rakoff briefly told jurors about his decision to dismiss the case and said he and the jurors both came to the same decision. “Your job was to decide the facts. My job was to decide the law,” Rakoff said. Palin did not prove “actual malice,” the judge said, which is the standard her legal team had to meet in her defamation case. The landmark 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan case specifies that public figures who sue for defamation must prove that the offender knew the claim was false or showed “reckless disregard” for the truth. "The law here sets a very high standard,” Rakoff said Monday. “The court finds that that standard has not been met.” Palin's attorney Kenneth Turkel said he is proud of his client for the “strength, resolve and courage to pick a fight with The New York Times.” Turkel spoke to the media outside of a lower Manhattan courthouse, saying he and his team are, “going to evaluate all our options for appeal.” Sarah Palin did not speak to cameras when she left the courthouse. Attorneys for the Times celebrated Monday, hugging each other in court after Rakoff made his decision. “The New York Times welcomes today's verdict. It is a reaffirmation of a fundamental tenet of American law: public figures should not be permitted to use libel suits to punish or intimidate news organizations that make, acknowledge and swiftly correct unintentional errors," Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha said in a statement after Tuesday's verdict. "It is gratifying that the jury and the judge understood the legal protections for the news media and our vital role in American society. We also want to thank the jurors for their careful deliberations in a difficult area of the law.” Jury finds that Sarah Palin failed to prove her defamation case against the New York Times, CNN.: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/15/media/sarah-palin-new-york-times-verdict/index.html xxxiiFormer New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet took the witness stand in the trial for Sarah Palin's lawsuit against the paper, telling the court he thought he had apologized to Palin for an editorial that erroneously linked her to the deadly 2011 shooting that injured former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. “Did you ever apologize to Governor Palin?” her attorney, Shane Vogt asked Bennet. “My hope is that as a consequence of this process now I have,” Bennet said. Palin sued the Times and Bennet for falsely linking a map that her political action committee put out to the 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona, that left six dead and Giffords injured. The Times wrote that the map put crosshairs over Giffords and other democratic lawmakers, when in reality, the map put crosshairs over their districts. The Times said it issued a correction “quickly” after the piece was published. The editorial, with the headline “America's Lethal Politics,” was published on June 14, 2017 in the wake of a shooting at a baseball practice that injured Rep. Steve Scalise and other members of Congress. For Palin to prevail in this trial, her lawyers need to prove to the jury that Bennet and the Times acted with “actual malice,” the standard set for public figures in defamation W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 24

35. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 cases in the landmark New York Times vs. Sullivan case. Attorneys read emails from Bennet in court that show that Bennet emailed colleagues shortly after the editorial started being criticized, saying he felt “horrible” about the mistake. Palin's attorneys have alleged that Bennet had a “political narrative” and willfully disregarded multiple articles that had been written showing there was no link between the map and the shooting that injured Giffords. Multiple former New York Times colleagues of Bennet's testified that he added language into a draft of the editorial that erroneously said there was a clear link between the map and the Giffords shooting. Bennet testified that, shortly after the piece was published, he was contacted by a fellow Times colleague who interpreted the editorial as saying that the man who shot Giffords and others “was incited by Sarah Palin or somebody else.”“That is not the message we intended to send,” Bennet testified. Bennet, who no longer works at the Times, testified he did not take the editorial down as he and others worked to research and write a correction, saying that the paper had a rule in place at the time against “unpublishing stories.” “If you publish a story you couldn't then just pull it down,” Bennet said. Bennet also testified about the paper receiving questions from reporters including CNN's Oliver Darcy about the editorial, and that a statement attributed to Bennet was given as a response to Darcy. Former editorial page editor James Bennet testifies in Palin v NYT trial: ‘I thought I had apologized to her’ CNN.: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/08/media/sarah-palin-james-bennet- testimony/index.html xxxiiiNew York Times Company v Sullivan. Oyez.: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39 xxxivBaltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby Facing Perjury and False Mortgage Application Charges Related to Her Purchase of Two Vacation Properties, Department of Justice.: https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/baltimore-city-state-s-attorney-marilyn-mosby- facing-perjury-and-false-mortgage xxxvBaltimore City State’s Attorney Denies Charges She Calls Retaliation for Indicting Law Enforcement, MSNBC.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1gPs5xRGR4 xxxviBaltimore’s top prosecutor pleads not guilty on federal perjury charges, New York Post.: https://nypost.com/2022/02/05/baltimore-state-attorney-marilyn-mosby-pleads-not-guilty-to- federal-perjury-charges/ xxxviiIn the past four decades, the cost of policing in the US has tripled and is now $115bn, according to a recent analysis. That steady increase comes as crime has been consistently declining. In most cities, spending on police is significantly greater than spending on services and other departments ($1.8bn on police in Los Angeles, for example, which is more than W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 25

36. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 half the city’s general fund). The Covid-19 economic crisis has led cities and states to make drastic budget cuts to education, youth programs, arts and culture, parks, libraries, housing services and more. But police budgets have grown or gone largely untouched – until pressure from protests this week. (…) Almost overnight and in direct response to protests, some mayors and other elected leaders have reversed their position on police funding. The mayor of LA said he would look to cut as much as $150m from the police, just two days after he pushed forward a city budget that was increasing it by 7%. A New York councilman has called for a $1 bn divestment from the NYPD. In Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, San Francisco and other cities, local policymakers have expressed support for some form of defunding or opposing police budget increases. Most radically, in Minneapolis, council members have discussed potentially disbanding the embattled police department altogether. Colleges, public school systems, museums and other institutions are also divesting from police. (…) While there is no contemporary example of defunding in the US, there are studies suggesting that less policing could mean less crime. In 2014 and 2015, New York officers staged a “slowdown” to protest the mayor, arguing that if they did less police work, the city would be less safe. But the opposite turned out to be true. When the officers took a break from “broken windows policing”, meaning targeting low-level offenses, there was a drop in crime. Researchers posited that aggressive policing on the streets for petty matters can ultimately cause social disruption and lead to more crime. Policing that punishes poverty, such as hefty traffic tickets and debts, can also create conditions where crime is more likely. When New York ended “stop and frisk”, crime did not rise. (…) America’s legacy of racism and severe gun violence epidemic make it difficult to compare to other countries. But some have pointed out that compared to peer nations, the US spends significantly less on social services and more on public safety programs, and has astronomically higher incarceration rates. These investments in police and prison, however, don’t translate to a safer country. In fact, police in America kill more people in days than many countries do in years. What does ‘defund the police’ mean? The rallying cry sweeping the US – explained. The Guardian.: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/05/defunding-the- police-us-what-does-it-mean xxxviiiWith public pressure on them, mayors and city councils responded. In 2020 budget votes, advocacy groups won over $840m in direct cuts from US police departments and at least $160m investments in community services, according to an analysis by Interrupting Criminalization, an initiative at the Barnard Center for Research on Women. In 25 cities, such as Denver and Oakland officials moved to removepolicefrom schools, saving an additional $34m. “Folks might look at $840m as a drop in the bucket of the $100bn we spend on police each year, but it definitely reverses the trend of constantly increasing police budgets over the past many decades,” said Andrea J Ritchie, one of the Barnard researchers, “and it did so in a way that also secured the transfer of funds from policing to community-based safety strategies.” In some cases, the cuts came from leaving vacant positions unfilled or moving the accounting of certain police functions to other agencies – changes that would probably have minimal immediate impact. Other city leaders said their cuts were due to the Covid-19 economic crisis and not the protests, and in 26 major cities, lawmakers continued to increase police budgets. But for cities that did intentionally pass cuts, some of the changes were significant. Portland, Oregon, cut $15m from its budget and disbanded a gun violence reduction unit and transit team that had both W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 26

37. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 long been accused of over-policing Black communities. San Francisco officials pledged to divest $120 mfrom police over two years with plans to invest in health programs and workforce training. Minneapolis is using police cuts to launch a mental health team to respond to certain 911 calls. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Baltimore and a dozen other cities have all also reduced police spending. And some of these cities are now demonstrating the impacts of their new budgets. (…) Austin, Texas, has made some of the most dramatic changes in the country, directly cutting roughly$20m from the police department, and moving $80m from the agency by shifting certain services out of law enforcement. The city has gone from spending 40% of its $1.1bn general fund on police to now allocating about 26% to law enforcement. “Public health and public safety are at the heart of this,” said Chris Harris, the criminal justice director at Texas Appleseed, a local not-for-profit. “When we take policing away, we are actually filling that void with alternatives that we know are going to help.” (…) “For decades, Austin has spent so many dollars policing homelessness, jailing the homeless, and paying for emergency rooms and 911 calls instead of reinvesting those same dollars to finally start reducing homelessness,” said Casar, the local councilmember. “By adjusting the police budget even just a little bit, we are going to beable to house and help hundreds of people with these two hotels … and I hope we’ll be able to buy more.” Austin has started redirecting certain 911 calls to mental health professionals – a move meant to provide help to those crises instead of a potentially deadly response by police, Casar said: “We know that we can solve the mental health crisis with treatment and care, not with handcuffs and jail.” The redirected funds are also meant to benefit the crime victims who have been traditionally neglected and mistreated by law enforcement, advocates said. Marina Garrett, a 25-year-old Austin resident and supporter of the defund efforts, has spoken out about how police mishandled her rape case. After she reported that she was sexually assaulted in 2015 at age 19, she submitted to a forensic exam, but detectives didn’t move forward while awaiting results for her rape kit, which was affected by a huge backlog. (…) During that time, the police forensic lab shut down amid claims of misconduct and incompetence, and Garrett’s case dragged on: “It was completely devastating. You wake up every day, and it’s all you can think about. My whole life was on pause for two years.” It took two years for the results to come back, and ultimately police and prosecutors did not move forward with a case: “I started to realize that police were no help … and that police were making survivors wish they had not come forward,” said Garrett, who is part of a class-action lawsuit against Austin police. With reinvested police funds, Austin is now moving forward with a new independent forensic science department. Garrett and other survivors have long pushed for the change. She said it was a small step to reduce some of police’s jurisdiction over sexual assault survivors, but that law enforcement remained largely ill-equipped to support victims. “We can’t just keep throwing money at police and expect them to change their ways and culture, which is sexist and racist,” she said. “There are groups that are trained to provide support to survivors and help them find healing and justice, separate and apart from police.” Alicia Dean, a city spokesperson, declined to comment on Garrett’s case, but said the police department supported the change in forensics, adding in a statement, “the city is committed to improving best practices and outcomes of sexual assault reporting, processing, investigations and prosecutions. We want all victims to feel safe, heard and have confidence in every step of the process.”These US cities defunded police: ‘We’re transferring money to the community.’ The Guardian.: https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund-police-transferring-money-community W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 27

38. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 xxxix House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took aim at the progressive rhetoric around policing Sunday, reiterating that a call to defund the police, a stance seeking a reduction in law enforcement budgets, is “dead” “not the position of the Democratic Party.” It’s a sign of the divergent views among Democrats regarding how policing should be conducted going forward, after Democrats prioritized police reform in the run-up to the 2020 election. Pelosi made the remarks to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in response to a question about Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., who last week rebutted calls from fellow Democrats telling her she should stop using the phrase. Pelosi’s ‘defund the police’ dismissal is insulting – and it hurts her legacy. MSNBC.: https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/pelosi-defund-the-police-rcna16118 As we’ve talked about on this show, (…) there has been an uptick in the number of homicides in the United States. And we’ve debunked the myths about what led to that spike in homicides. Republicans will have you believe that defunding the police has led to this but the fact of the matter is that most cities and municipalities have not in fact defunded the police. And the very few that had City Council’s vote in favor of redirecting some of the police budget have not actually implemented it quite yet. (…) Now the question is: will the left tackle this on and provide an alternative to the tough on crime legislation that Joe Biden had championed in the 1990s or we just going to allow this pendulum to swing back to a tough on crime narrative? (…) What I am seeing from Joe Biden so far is a bit of a mixed bag. (…) As the Associated Press reports, “White House aides believe that Biden, with his long legislative record on crime as a former senator, is not easy to paint as soft on the issue, and the president has been clear that he is opposed to the ‘defund the police’ movement.” (…) What we’re seeing from the GOP and how they’re essentially setting things up for the midterm elections is them focusing mostly on the surge in crime and blaming the Democratic Party for it. (…) One can argue that it would be difficult to blame Biden for the surge in crime considering the fact that one of the biggest criticisms toward Biden was the fact that he championed the crime bill. (…) The crime bill was draconian. It led to mass incarceration. It was of course a tough on crime piece of legislation that led to quite a bit of criticism toward Biden by progressives. So the question is: will he go back to those policies? Will Republicans succeed in painting him as someone who’s weak on crime when he clearly has a record that’s the antithesis of that? (…) But here’s what we know so far. Biden is not in favor of cutting police budgets. In fact, he is advocating for the use of a significant portion of the Coronavirus relief bill to be utilized by municipalities to bolster policing efforts locally. Ana Kasparian, The Young Turks.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgNy4GXQsQw&t=48s Barack Obama chastised Democratic political candidates for using “snappy” slogans like “defund the police” that he argued could turn voters away, in an interview released this week. “You lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you’re actually going to get the changes you want done,” the former president told show host Peter Hamby in an interview with Good Luck America, a Snapchat political show. “The key is deciding, do you want to actually get something done, or do you want to feel good among the people you already agree with?” Obama added. However, Obama also defended the place of young progressives as important “new blood” in the Democratic party, singling out Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – who has spoken out strongly on the phrase and the essence of defunding police W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 28

39. RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022 departments to boost social spending. (…) The remarks drew immediate backlash from notable, Black progressive Democrats– including the Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who stressed “defund the police” was not about mere words but a “demand for equitable investments and budgets for communities across the country”. (…) “We didn’t lose Breonna because of a ‘slogan’,” said Kentucky state representative Charles Booker, referencing Breonna Taylor, the Black, Louisville woman who was shot dead in her own apartment by police in March during a botched raid. Booker broke barriers in 2018 when he became the youngest Black lawmaker elected to the Kentucky state legislature in nearly a century. And he ran a close contest for the Democratic nomination to challenge – ultimately unsuccessfully –the Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell’s seat in the November election. Barack Obama criticizes ‘Defund the Police’ slogan but faces backlash, The Guardian.: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/02/barack-obama-criticizes-defund-the-police- slogan-backlash xlThe Good Fight recap: ‘Day 436.’ EW.: https://ew.com/recap/the-good-fight-season-2- episode-5/ xliIn case your memory is a little foggy, the Mosbys have emerged as one of the most prominent political couples in Baltimore over the last 18 months of upheaval. Nick represents the City Council district where a 25-year-old resident, Freddie Gray, was arrested in April 2015 and where protests over his death turned to incendiary violence. Marilyn is the state’s attorney who, in the midst of that unrest, took to the steps of the War Memorial downtown, facing City Hall, to announce that she was filing criminal charges against six police officers over Gray’s death. Baltimore vs. Marilyn Mosby, The New York Times.: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/magazine/marilyn-mosby-freddie-gray-baltimore.html W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 29