Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Incredible how Gullible We’ve Been. For Example: Where is ANY USDOJ Grants Awarded Database? Why won’t the USDOJ Even Divulge Actual Grant Numbers on its token LISTS (not Database) of Grantees? [Started mid-Aug. 2016<~~ Published Aug. 31, 2018!<~~]

leave a comment »

Incredible how Gullible We’ve Been.  For Example: Where is ANY USDOJ Grants Awarded Database? Why won’t the USDOJ Even Divulge Actual Grant Numbers on its token LISTS (not Database) of Grantees? [Started mid-Aug. 2016<~~ Published Aug. 31, 2018!<~~] [<== case-sensitive shortlink to this post ends “-4cx”; can click and copy the url (web address)]  Currently this post is about 10,300 words (that is, when I’m “about” done with it).

Someone has to point this out sooner or later… Regarding the USDOJ lack of a database, it was fast and short post. I’m just pointing it out, raising the topic with an example or two, not fully expounding it. (written Aug. 2016)

Quick intro (written Aug. 2018):  Yes, this post was in draft for just over two years., Aug. 2016-Aug. 2018!  I’m not quite sure why (I do remember writing it); possibly other things on the mind, or I thought I’d already published it.. Between then and now, we had, obviously (to all, especially in the USA) another Presidential election and for sure, another President.. Some of this post may read differently from the perspective of the Trump Administration and mainstream media’s portrayal of the same.  (See the post I just published, however)….

You are viewing an image of a section of this 8/31/2018-published post below. For the active links, go to actual section. Images (screen shots like this) do not contain active links. For more on this topic, read similar-themed posts from Summer 2016 or (use Search function) search “David Mitrany” or “Bypassing sovereignty” “functionalism” “RIIA” (or any other distinctive term in the above image).  I quoted this article in several posts.  Family Law is another category in which targeted “functionalism” attempts to bypass both state (USA) and national (USA/Canada/Australia/UK (i.e. Commonwealth in particular) borders.  For example, look at the board of directors countries + positions, (judge, magistrate), affiliations (i.e., especially within the USA, in what major cities, at centers within which universities, courts or law schools) degrees (J.D., Psy.D., Ed.D, PhD (often in psychiatry, psychology, or social work, i.e., “M.S.W.”) of “AFCC“, and of their Editors of the FamilyCourtReview (at AFCC website/their link to FCR broken; it’s a bit hard to locate at Hofstra U. as the page has moved, but~~>)(at Hofstra University School of Law website) over the years for an indicator of which countries are supposed to internationally align standards (including preserving, in general, patriarchy, privatizing operations (also a religious theme), and keeping targeted population (not necessarily the involved professionals — judges, psychologists, family lawyers, etc. — women / mothers in their key roles (as breeders, not leaders..) throughout society, basing this, however, upon claims from the (gov’t and private-supported) “Social Science R&D” sectors.  

The next three images show, not necessarily displayed in this order: (1) a part of my Admin dashboard (as blog administrator) confirming that the post hadn’t been touched again recently until, well, today (8-31-2018);  (2) post labels, “tags” (this time, that I’d already added previously); and (3) a short excerpt from the text below (written 2016)..

FYI, the part which pertains most to the title as above (about the DOJ database) is actually closer towards the bottom of this post.  What’s between is certainly still relevant, and I think written well enough to just publish it primarily “as-is.”  Please do remember, however, it was written under a different President and Administration; no question things have changed rapidly since then. Also, FYI, I still am not particularly “enamored” of either political party; mostly because of what I know about Welfare Reform and what feminist (so-called) leadership has failed to report about it, and what that ignorance has cost my children (now in their twenties), myself, and our relationship with each other (and as it turned out, with their father also in our situation)…. Just about everything but my physical life..

Below this line is “2016” text and workmanship, unedited before publishing the last day of August. I admit part of the motivation being, as I’ve not been as productive posting this month, to get one more entry on that calendar. The other is, I think it’s worth reading….//LGH.. Comments remain open…

The situation exemplifies how the public continues to be lulled to sleep, most likely by mainstream media, especially in Presidential election years or surrounding the War on Terrorism in which U.S. Citizens who don’t “straighten up and fly right” enough, or, case in point the CCHS.GWU.eduProgram on Extremism“** U.S. citizens who perhaps are flying too far “right-wing,” the policy seems to be up and running that we are potential terrorists in our on “homeland.”  This cannot be just about “violence” — look at the first sentence which references issues related to violent AND non-violent extremism:

The Program on Extremism at George Washington University’s Center for Cyber & Homeland Security provides analysis on issues related to violent and non-violent extremism. The Program spearheads innovative and thoughtful academic inquiry, producing empirical work that strengthens extremism research as a distinct field of study. The Program aims to develop pragmatic policy solutions that resonate with policymakers, civic leaders, and the general public.

[all emphases mine//LGH]

In that second sentence, I think they are trying a little too hard on the self-characterizations.  In this post I looked at and (on reading it) decided to  take on one of the “occasional papers” as to how empiric, innovative, or thoughtful this sample at least, actually is.

But you can also see the clear statement that the Program’s goal is stated as “supporting extremism research as a distinct field of study.”

Here’s a similar but not identical statement at a “Network” supported by a US university on expanding a previously set up “field of study” — different subject matter, process still similar.   CCHS.GWU.edu it says was started up in 2015 (if I recall it right), and the following university-based (but involving personnel and professionals off-site and out-of-state, collaboratively) started it seems in 2014.  Both centers are working on previously established fields and seeking to further expand and solidify the research — including on evaluation of practices -of the created fields.  Look at the language:

We seek to:

  • Promote the evaluation of ______  programs.
  • Expand the number of researchers and practitioners collaborating to evaluate these programs.
  • Disseminate information that leads to effective _____  practice and evaluation research.

Click here to see what word fills in the blanks and here to see the recipients of the first round of $350,000 of grants to just four organizations in pursuit of this goal. These grants will flow through a university, probably from HHS, and probably hard to track from grantee to sub-grantee, all within the USA.   Click here to see Round Two recipients (five projects).  I recognize several of the names and have already posted on at least three of them.

Notice: no description lists where to follow-up, individual grant amounts, or (it would have to be from the university most likely) grant numbers.   The money, however, on the overall website is acknowledged to be supported by specific federal agency grant (USA). And they have an RFP for more grant applications, plus webinars on how to get them:

Eligible applicants include:
  • Researchers, _______ practitioners or researcher-practitioner teams.
  • Researchers and practitioners from underrepresented racial, ethnic and cultural groups are encouraged to apply.
  • Early career investigators with requisite evaluation skills are also welcome to apply.

I have some recent, relevant, and disturbing (but not really out of character already demonstrated so far) finds on that network, ready on a different post.  From my familiarity with how professionals talk in that field (and tactics) I recognized similar talk on the “Program on Extremism” one. This talk, and the rapid proliferation and dissemination of it electronically, from respected (several university-based) sources plus a well-developed, restricted (financially)-access database, is occurring right now, while “most Americans” (as it says) are not really aware of the center, the research, or the databases helping rapidly proliferate and disseminate it. “Most Americans,” in fact, are the targets to be screened.   That’s why I’m blogging it.

Both fields are extremely broad-based and deal potentially with life-and death matters (one, on a more massive scale, but the other, overall, on an ongoing though usually individual, or small-group fatalities when the occur) scale.  Both fields seem to set up their networks in similar fashion, and BOTH deal significantly with the justice system, that is, courts, prisons, law enforcement, and when to arrest or when to release.

Both also deal with privatization of government functions and a focus on consulting experts in the, as I say, created fields, “Extremism — violent and nonviolent” — and (again, click here to identify what field) under “Technical Assistance and Training,” this is the process:

The _____ seeks to improve the capacity of researchers and practitioners to conduct rigorous evaluation of _____ programs. To build research capacity, we will provide a variety of technical assistance including one-on-one consulting services, mentoring and peer support as well as web-based communication platforms and resources

There are so many similarities to what I’m showing below including the trademarked (or below, subscription-basis) web-based platforms.

I admit to adding a major section, starting with a publication found on the “Program on Extremism“** website, to call attention to the process of turning the tables on Americans as potential “violent — or nonviolent- extremists” and use of name calling to discourage discussion of ideas which actually to relate to sovereignty and taxation.   Adding this makes the original topic closer to the bottom of the post.

Both major topics are important, and both occur on this one post. One takes less time to show than the other, I think a few examples should make the main point.  This other has unfamiliar centers, new and emerging fields of research and other terminology which it takes longer to show and of course, tell.  

I can’t think of a single word which would encompass this section.  The triple-threat title below is my third attempt to categorize what I’ve just written:

(1) Establishing the Research and Practice Field of “Extremism,” (2) Defining and Fear-mongering of  “Sovereigns,” (3) Disseminating these Findings Fast, Electronically, and Internationally, but Not in Plain View for All.

These, AND BELOW are the basic themes I saw being promoted from mostly George Washington University and another website regarding the research platform referenced under (3) above and the fourth bullet, below.

The third bullet, I pulled in because it seems to contradict the powerhouse of consortia, centers at universities (you’ll see just how many as to the ICSR), and it’s what’s obviously taking place now within the US and state government policies towards population management and control.  We are to “fork over” our rights, and talking about rights could be more dangerous than usual, these days.

  • “Extremism (violent and nonviolent) = Terrorism”
  • “Sovereign Citizens in America = Racists,  AntiSemites, Terrorists and anti-U.S. Government”
    • Author tracks and defines beliefs and verbiage of “sovereigns,” primarily by using the word “sovereign” over and over in many applications, and sprinkling in a sampling dating back to just after the Civil War (1870) in only about 12 pages of text.
    • Let’s Get Honest takes the opportunity track verbiage of whitepaper’s author and based on this limited account (likewise) possible beliefs.
  • Historically, sovereignty of nations (national governments, ours, I mean the USA’s*) is itself an “undesirable” a threat to world peace, and an obstacle to be overcome — whether by regionalism or David Mitrany’s functionalism”  International associations and journals historically agree on this, if not on how to “get ‘er done…”  Perhaps targeting anything “sovereign” or “extremist” (violent or not) and pairing it with, as bad or worse than ISIS or Islamic Extremism, is part of that process.
  • “We obviously need (2007ff) an International Research Center on Radicalization and a Terrorism Tracker Platform (TRAC subscription database).  Let’s base it in London, where the resident Sovereign is currently a Queen, and in general the association of empire-building, class and caste systems, and centralized healthcare, highly centralized funding of higher education, etc. is already accepted.”**

(**I added quotes in case readers missed my sarcastic tone.  Do we really need this?)

(*…forgot the international readership of this blog shown in html visitor-tracker for a moment there..)

I first look at their handling of the term (in a what looks like an intended “white paper”) “Without Prejudice:  What Sovereign Citizens Believe” (added only Jun, 2016) and then show (again) that the process of overturning national sovereignty has been in place and documented as desirable by many — those who are not being targeted as “violent extremists” that I can tell of.

The credits of the author (J.M. Berger) of that publication include participation in a London-based ICSR (TrackingTerrorism.org) major database with participating universities in both England and at least two in the USA.  The concept of providing a “global” database in which the material is instantly accessible “globally” (as to the subscribers — and it’s not cheap!) means that circulation may bypass discussion at the “commoners” level.  In that scenario, it seems to me that the social divide (not including financial sponsors) is “experts and researchers” versus potential targets, or subject matter — and possibly to be considered terrorists if they object too loudly, or are not mainstream enough.

**Note:  You cannot click on a web page “Program on Extremism” — only view the drop-down menu, and pick one of the sub-menu items.  I picked this time, “Publications,” which come in different categories.  Here’s one image of a series of “GW Extremism Tracker” pdfs, dated July 2016.  Extremism =/= Terrorism.  Notice they are labeling it “Extremism Tracker” and underneath it “Terrorism in the United States.”

GWU Program on Extremism %22Tracker%22 (4pp) posted July 2016 GWU Program on Extremism “Tracker” (4pp) posted July 2016 (<==This pdf is 4pp). This one is focused more in ISIS/Islam.

Under “Publications,” I looked at both Reports (GW Extremism trackers), and “Occasional Papers.” [List of Occasional Papers as of today — short list — is at bottom of this post as a “Footnote” ]  Here’s one dated June, 2016, on “Without Prejudice: What Sovereign Citizens Believe” by J. M. Berger.  I put “about the author” before the “Abstract.”  All emphases including underlines or italics (except in section headings) are mine, not author’s

Without Prejudice: What Sovereign Citizens Believe

About the Author

J.M. Berger is a fellow with George Washington University’s Program on Extremism. He is a researcher, analyst, and consultant, with a special focus on extremist activities in the U.S. and use of social media. Berger is co-author of the critically acclaimed ISIS: The State of Terror with Jessica Stern and author of Jihad Joe: Americans Who Go to War in the Name of Islam, the definitive history of the U.S. jihadist movement. Berger publishes the website Intelwire.com and has written for Politico, The Atlantic, and Foreign Policy, among others. He was previously a non-resident fellow with The Brookings Institution, Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World, and an associate fellow with the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation.

[[This quote /Discussion of this Occasional Paper is continued below a Look at the “ICSR — International Center for Study of Radicalisation”   //LGH]]

Again, this is background detail on some of the “About” references.  But I will get to the paper’s content below all that..

Other than possibly at the International Centre, then, it would not seem that his speciality is “sovereign citizens.”  “Sovereign citizens” is a different topic which does NOT pertain particularly to the Islam or extremist Islam, but rather to the concept of national identity especially  U.S. History, as this article is speaking authoritatively on.  And expertise in one area does not translate into expertise in a different one.


He publishes the website Intelwire.  Sample (showing multi-column, colorful layout, looking as good as most on-line news sources)  of today’s page, and below that, two excerpts from it (right column, middle and bottom sections) you can see the ISIS Twitter Census article, and below it another reference tool being offered, and in between (with click on the ad) what multimedia group Intelwire is under.  My question, on first glance is who funds this? (is it really self-funding), does J.M. Berger actually put this much information out, personally, and how did he get all the primary source documents, FBI documents, CIA documents, without (if this is indeed without) being a member of either of those intelligence agencies?  Page 1, top right,  is advertising these “Exclusive Documents”:


And if not a member of the FBI or CIA, what is the purpose of publishing all this at this point in U.S. history, with obvious support as a journalist and expert from Brookings Institution and the ICSR (shown below the Intelwire section here)?

Viewed 8-16-2016, %22INTELWIRE-Open source intelligence,Primary Doc'ts, analysis by J.M. Berger, co-author of %22ISIS...%22 (4pp pdf | p1 only, png)

Viewed 8-16-2016, INTELWIRE-Open source intelligence,Primary Doc’ts, analysis by J.M. Berger, co-author of “ISIS…” (4pp pdf | p1 only, png)

It seems the expertise is web-based and social media technologies:


“The ISIS Twitter Census”

In a groundbreaking study for the Brookings Institution’s Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World, , J.M. Berger and Jonathon Morgan identified 20,000 ISIS-supporting Twitter accounts and analyzed their characteristics, profiles, locations and tweeting activity. The study estimates a minimum of 46,000 ISIS-supporting accounts were active in October and November 2014, and provides data and insights on how the suspension of thousands of accounts have impacted the performance of the network. For more reporting on ISIS and its use of media, read ISIS: The State of Terror, the new book by J.M. Berger and Jessica Stern, on sale everywhere.

[[emphases – underline, bold, font-color — mine, not Intelwire’s//LGH]]

and below, billing himself this time as  the “ICSR Associate Fellow,” another publication being (presumably) sold (no graphics attached to the section), but the ad for it is between these two promotionals.


Through the analysis of thousands of Twitter accounts following prominent white nationalists and anarchists, “Who Matters Online: Measuring influence, Evaluating Content and Countering Violent Extremism in Online Social Networksoffers new quantitative tools to identify highly engaged extremists in large social networks and to evaluate tactics for combating violent extremism (CVE) online. Authored by ICSR Associate Fellow J.M. Berger and Bill Strathearn, Who Matters Online: Measuring influence, Evaluating Content and Countering Violent Extremism in Online Social Networks demonstrates how quantitative analysis can identify highly engaged extremists in large social networks.  [[underlining and font-coloring mine, not Intelwire’s.  The promo was plain text throughout.//LGH]]

Between those two articles was the click-through logo for IntelWire(Pro), to obtain or subscribe to the services (access to those “Quantitative Tools”) the book probably advertises which (after clickthrough) shows what the other company Intelwire is part of and makes it clear what sectors they serve (Academic, Business, Government) and that this is not a charitable service!

Advanced social media analysis and open-source intelligence for academic, business and government clients. This is a commercial service; requests for unpaid assistance and requests from private individuals will not receive a response.  A division of Multifaceted Media Group Inc.

Excerpt from “About J.M. Berger” section of the above (Intelwire page 1).  Notice there is no “About Us” as might be found on other on-line news sources, but this is about one  primary journalist and investigative reports with expertise in analyzying “quantitative data” from social media. He also publishes with co-authors; maybe they are the experts for all I know…

CSpan image of J.M. Berger on “Social Media & Terrorism” from “intelwire.eogplex.com/jmbsenate” found under “About J.M. Berger” section of at Intelwire.com

…In addition to writing for the media, Berger consults for and trains private companies and government agencies on issues related to homegrown terrorism, online extremism, foreign fighters and advanced social media analysis. He has lectured at Harvard University, American University and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He was keynote speaker and a panelist at the 2015 conference of the Society for Terrorism Study, hosted by the University of Massachusetts.

  • Searching for SOCIETY FOR TERRORISM STUDY, 2015 CONFERENCE hosted by UMass:

I found a Society for Terrorism Research, 2014 conference sponsored by Suffolk University (Boston).  See its “About” page, below… and that this is a Massachusetts organization.

There is a “Society for Terrorism Study“?  I found a “Society for Terrorism Research…” – Its 2015 conference, however was at the Birmingham City University, England.  Please note on their “About” page how the announcement it had been formed in 2007 was made at an  American Psychological Association conference on the topic of using the “development” approach to countering terrorism.  Also (right sidebar) that the contact is a PO Box in Newton Mass (next organization referenced in J.M. Berger’s “About” paragraph, above also in Massachusetts)




(searching for “Society for Terrorism STUDY,” this has a different name, included “FYI”). PO Box 590094 in Newton, Massachusetts, USA.

“MultifacetedMedia.com” redirects to the above ad for IntelWire (pro) page.  Multifaceted Media Group, Inc.  appears to be a Massachusetts Corporation:

Mediacompanies.org says:  “MULTIFACETED MEDIA GROUP INC. is a business entity formed in Massachusetts. With registration number 270234085, it is now of unknown status.”

MultifactedMediaGroupInc (Intelwire | %22J M Berger%22) = a (Somerville) Mass Corp #270234085 Org 6-2-2009 Domestic Profit 100K shares@$0 value John Berger [Pres:Treas) & Janet Walsh (Secy)MultifactedMediaGroupInc (Intelwire | J M Berger) = a (Somerville) Mass Corp #270234085 Org 6-2-2009 Domestic Profit 100K shares@$0 value John Berger [Pres:Treas) & Janet Pauline Walsh (Secy)

Basically, it’s a private, for-profit started by John Berger (only) at an address in Cambridge and for  (first filing was “boilerplate” – any lawful purpose, but supplemental filing, purpose was):


about 2015 this purpose changed to “MEDIA PRODUCTION.”  Only two people, and two addresses were ever associated with this 7-year-old business.  The address in Somerville appears to be a UPS Store (with #201, the box#).

[Just saving because it’s so old! Link is to a 1923 typewritten set of Somerville, MA city meeting notes, the address 411 Highland Avenue shows up briefly on page “413”, Modrosian seeking permission to maintain an awning there.  Lots of licenses and permit requests, etc.]

Searching Massachusetts Trademarks (did not find “IntelWire” — it may be a “dba”)


J.M. Berger Reference, “International Centre for Radicalisation”

That “international centre for radicalisation” (showing British spelling) is indeed in London, at King’s College, under the War Department (see bottom left of webpage) at next link.

J.M. Berger is indeed listed under their “Associate Fellows” Page, with the affiliation “Intelwire.” Recommended to take a look.  I also see someone affiliated with “BAMF” which I just posted on, as representing a German federal office dealing with refugees and immigration:

Milena Uhlmann, Research Centre of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF)  [“BAMF” is the acronym for the same office title in German]

http://icsr.info/about-us-2/patrons/ (ICSR “about us” repeats some of the “About us” text from the next link below.  It does not, for example, list the other universities or institutes involved.)  Under Patrons list, you can count several British, several US (!!), a former Prime Minister of Canada, and also from Columbia and Portugal and Ireland and Sri Lanka.  I didn’t see any France, Germany, other Latin American countries and except for Sri Lanka, anything representing Asia (and nothing regarding Russia).

Here are the US participants listed as “Patrons” (meaning, unexplained on that page); the list is alpha by last name and each contains a short testimonial to ICSR, which I’m omitting:

Hon. Arif Alikhan  Former Assistant Secretary for Policy Development, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2009-11); former Deputy Mayor for Homeland Security, Los Angeles (2006-09):

Secretary Chuck Hagel Former US Secretary of Defense (2013  – 2015). Prior to this he served two terms as Senator of Nebraska, serving his second in the United States Senate.

Ambassador Mitchell B. Reiss President of Washington College; former Director of Policy Planning, U.S. State Department (2003-05):

Hon. Frances Townsend Former Assistant to the U.S. President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Chair of the Homeland Security Council (2004-08

Tracking Terrorism.org

Logo from TrackingTerrorism.org

International Center for the Study of Radicalisation – ICSR LINK

  • ICSR was launched in January 2008.
  • ICSR is a unique partnership which brings together five great academic institutions: King’s College London; the University of Pennsylvania; the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (Israel); the Jordan Institute of Diplomacy; and Georgetown University.
  • ICSR affiliates include the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi and the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies in Islamabad.
  • ICSR is the first initiative of this kind in which Arab and Israeli academic institutions work together.
  • The aim and mission of ICSR is to educate the public in relation to diplomacy and strategy, public administration and policy, security and counter-terrorism and international conflict resolution. Within this area, we also educate on issues relating to political violence and radicalisation.
  • ICSR produces first-class research, addressing the most pressing questions regarding the occurrence and impact of radicalisation and political violence. Ongoing projects look at how to understand radicalisation online, improve de-radicalisation programmes in prison; and the differences between radicalisation in Europe and North America.

co. 2016 TRAC 

2018 update (logo may not display; nearby “LINK” still valid but website appearance has changed dramatically since.  Here’s how it looked when I first linked it):

(for my “Incredible How Gullible” post written 8/2016 but not published until 8/31/2018): Former TRAC (Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium) logo from “TrackingTerrorism.org” as viewed Spring/Summer 2016. The publisher (see very bottom of “About Us” page is “The Beacham Group.”


OK, I get this.  The ICSR are the researchers involved, but TRAC is the subscription service (varying levels for Individual – $500 annually / 1-49 users – $700 annually / 50+ users “contact us”) making that research electronically available.  In a separate post, I’m looking at (similar idea) “IssueLab” under “The Foundation Center” (a US-based organization but which coordinates global databases, total assets around $41M presently).  A visit to “Tracking terrorism.org” brings up an immediate banner saying, “UNLOCK ACCESS if you want to see more than 1% of our “more than 10,000  pieces of expert insights and analyses available with a TRAC subscription”

The benefits of such a database are “universal” search fields across many databases, it looks like.  Who WOULDN’T want something like that?  Too bad the US government doesn’t provide it for its citizens and others — “sovereign” or otherwise…  Their About Page (scroll down further) also lists their contributors, and ties it to The Beacham Group (founded in 1985).


With tens of thousands (and expanding) web pages of information, over 4,650 (and expanding) group profiles, and 2,800 consortium members, TRAC provides many ways to efficiently access information.


The “Search” box that appears at the top and bottom of every page allows you to search the entire database (articles, groups, chatter) for specific names or words. However, unlike Google, TRAC returns exact matches (including punctuation) and does not suggest alternative spellings. Because group names and identities constantly change, TRAC has included as many combinations of group name spellings and aliases as possible. If Universal Search does not return the group you’re researching, select the “Groups” button from the menu bar and scroll through the list. …. WHO’s BEHIND TRAC


[bullets above added, not on their web page]


TRAC’s consortium of 2,800 experts live in and report from terrorism hotspots worldwide, including Russia, Poland, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Philippines, Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Serbia, Brussels, Sweden, Italy, Greece, United Kingdom, Canada, and United States. If you reside in a terrorism hotspot, or have a particular interest/expertise in political violence and would like to become a consortium member, contact Veryan Khan at vkhan@TRACterrorism.org

“United States” or places within it are considered a terrorism hotspot…


Throughout TRAC’s development, the Beacham Group sought the input and assessment from leading scholars to ensure its primary goal of helping researchers locate the most appropriate and efficient resources available, a publishing model that has been connecting people with authoritative information since 1985.  Founded as Beacham Publishing Corp, the company’s acclaimed titles span the impact of climate change with Beacham’s Guide to Endangered Species and Beacham’s Guide to Environmental Issues, to topical issues in literature, to important societal concerns with The Encyclopedia of Social Change.

What’s Happening in this Occasional Paper?

I am not reporting on all its content so much as its presentation, which I think otherwise might be missed.  Some of the content is already familiar.

The “Without Prejudice” paper seems more an attempt by rhetoric and repetition — instead of by the process of reasoned argument citing to sufficient proof — to link both the sovereign citizens and the ISIS/Islamic terrorists under the same banner and (as it turns out) particularly as they are portrayed as racist and anti-Semite, which no question, some — or maybe many – certainly are.

Throughout, it links some documentation and anecdotal reports across more than a century to make the broad-based conclusions which those footnotes and reports cannot support.  If the statements contained the proper conditional, or qualifying statements, that’d be one thing.  However, at a university-sponsored center and in circles emphasizing research and documentation — this is not documentation OR academic research; it’s more subtle form of, largely unsupported and at times internally self-contradictory name-calling and proselytizing about how dangerous “sovereign citizens” are, and (its first footnote) allegedly more feared by U.S. law enforcement than Islamic extremist terrorists.

To a country well-versed on the name Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing (1995), it’s also very effective.

By association and claim (again, not substantial evidence), that links the talk of “sovereignty” or “sovereign” (xyz …. abc) as hating blacks and Jews, i.e., despicable and in the process makes an interesting oversight about suffrage after the Civil War, forgetting that a separate Constitutional Amendment was needed for women of any race to obtain the vote.

It is intended to scare people away from what are bases (or lack of bases) they are talking about, like  wife-beaters and other abominable behavior by representatives of Christianity scare some away from church-attendance (case in point), or the Bible, or “calling upon the name of Jesus” (not “case in point,” at least not yet…)

The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author, and not necessarily those of the Program on Extremism or the George Washington University


When surveyed, United States law enforcement consistently ranks sovereign citizens as the top domestic extremist threat, even greater than that presented by homegrown jihadists.[1] Despite the considerable size of the movement, estimated to include hundreds of thousands of adherents, few Americans know what sovereigns believe and how those beliefs inform their actions.[2]

So-called sovereign citizens believe in an alternate history of the U.S., replacing reality with a vast conspiracy governed by complex, arcane rules. They believe that if someone understands and properly invokes those rules, that person is exempt from many laws, including the obligation to pay taxes, and that he or she can be empowered to seize private property, enforce legal actions against individuals, and claim money from the government. When faced with arrest for illegal actions that they believe are legal, sovereign citizens can become violent.

What exactly do sovereigns believe? The answer is complicated. There are many variations on sovereign ideology, and while some are more common than others, any two sovereign citizens might offer different explanations. And the explanations that are offered may seem incoherent to people who are not immersed in sovereign subculture. Although the movement itself is relatively young, first meaningfully coalescing in the 1990s and growing rapidly since, it is based on beliefs that go back decades.

In order to bring light to this topic, this paper will:
1) Outline the basic concepts to which at least a plurality of sovereigns subscribe. 2) Provide information on the origins of the most significant sovereign ideas.

1. Charles E. Loeser, “From Paper Terrorists to Cop Killers: The Sovereign Citizen Threat,” North Carolina Law Review 93, (2015): 1106.
2 Michelle Theret, “Sovereign Citizens: A Homegrown Terrorist Threat and Its Negative Impact on South Carolina,” South Carolina Law Review 63, no. 4 (2011): 853.

This is written like a sort of “white paper.”  It’s only 13 pages, and has about 25 few footnotes.  But by writing it, the process of taking an as-if neutral, outsider stance to “sovereigns” sets up the subject/object (researcher/research material) relationship — which seems to be the main message of the whitepaper. This itself sets up a superior/inferior status.

The broad-based statements with periodic footnotes lends an air of academic expertise, but don’t represent anything more than some review of literature, as shown in the footnotes.  The very first two footnotes (see box above) which justify the authoritative (declarative) statements on:

  • #1 what “When surveyed, United States law enforcement consistently ranks sovereign citizens as most dangerous, even greater than that presented by homegrown jihadists.” and
  • #2,  that “few Americans know what sovereigns believe.”

For this, references … for anyone who gets around to reading this paper (I wonder how many Americans that might even be)… as some sort of work product, and referencing (1) an articles in  North Carolina Law Review, 2015, and (2) an article in SOUTH Carolina Law Review (2011).  This is not an academic paper for peer review, for publication in a peer-reviewed professional journal, or in pursuit of a doctorate.  There is no bibliography at the back, this is just a “paper” with where it was presented, if anywhere, not shown.  It’s just “there” uploaded on the website, and as the category says, under “Occasional Papers” No “occasion” is referenced, so I guess that means “sporadic” or “periodic” papers).

“When surveyed” and U.S. law enforcement” are extremely broad phraseson which to make any authoritative conclusion.  This statement (and, when you see it elsewhere, this type of statement, you may notice) lacks qualifiers (statements of condition) making it speculation — and certainly not authoritative. (“When surveyed” is hardly much of a qualifier — when else would “what they believe” come up – -when arrested?  When interviewed for a public relations or community interest piece, or after a major civil disturbance, such as the one recently in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the County Sheriff David Clarke asked for the National Guard to be on standby?_

RHETORIC of the WHITE PAPER reminds me of the OVER-USE of main subject terms found in Fatherhood Practitioner rhetoric. In explaining anything, it is to be explained in terms of something different.  Excess, repetitive, drilling-it-in use of the terms being “explained” isn’t explanation — it’s sales, dressed up as explanation.

TITLE:  Without Prejudice:  What Sovereign Citizens Believe — over 13 pages (plus title page and acknowledgements/disclaimers front matter, which don’t use the term much):

“About” is page 1 (mostly blank) Abstract is page 2, and page 13 is only 2 paragraphs.  Combining them, I’m calling it 12 pages (not including title).  By web-based simple “find” (which on my device gives a “results” count each time) — I didn’t personally count them! —

109 occurrences of “sovereign” (singular or plural, any usage) / 12 pages = 9 times/page. Paragraphs per page range from 4 to 7, average maybe 5 or 6 (dep. on size).  Basically, the word occurs constantly throughout the piece, making it sound more like persuasive (selling the points) than explanatory writing, although it does explain, anecdotal and wrapped in repetition as I’ll show right below, some key points.

Usage of the word “sovereign” or “sovereigns” (plural) in context in this piece:

Use of “sovereigns believe” — 14 times.  “Sovereigns” individually, 38 times.  The word “sovereign (singular) followed by a space is used 63 times, some of those occurrences in “sovereign ideology” (1)  and “sovereign ideas” (2), also sovereign subculture, sovereign movement, sovereign history (section title), sovereign citizens (plural; 16 uses, including the paper’s main title, and about 4 footnotes warning about sovereign citizens) sovereign citizen (singular, about 13 times, mostly as part of an adjective phrase):

  • sovereign citizen threat / sovereign citizen movement / sovereign citizen plots*

*(including two references to one footnoted author Judy Thomas, in several similarly-named pieces (notice the years, and where published), among other references about “Sovereign Citizen _____”

  • 23 Megan Drapalskithe, “Growing Terror Threat of the ‘Sovereign Citizen’,” The Australian, December 1, 2015; James Thomas and Jeanavive McGregor, “Sovereign Citizens: Terrorism Assessment Warns of Rising Threat from Anti-Government Extremists,” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, November 30, 2015.
  • 24 Judy Thomas, “Violent Sovereign Citizen Plots Grow in U.S.—And now go Worldwide,” Kansas City Star, December 26, 2015.
  • 26 Judy Thomas, “Violent Sovereign Citizen Plots Grow in U.S.,” December 26, 2015; “Sovereign Citizens: A Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement.” FBI Counterterrorism Analysis Section (2011).

Footnote 24  and 26a contains two references published the day after Christmas, 2015, might be actually the same content.  Notice some quotes are from what looks like (I don’t know Australia) MSM — Kansas City Start, Australian Broadcasting System, The Australian, etc.

Again, these counts were informal, but the numbers should be accurate because they are simply loading up the pdf in the web page (along with nothing else) and using the “search” function for each of the above phrases.  Put them together, and we’ve got the word “sovereign” on average at least once (frequently several times) per paragraph, plus in the footnotes, and in the title.  If you highlit them all yellow, the page would be as full of yellow rectangles as highly-redacted documents, such as a police report or subpoena’ed document, or maybe a response to an FOIA request, are sometimes full of blacked-out text.

Here’s a sample of just two paragraphs from the top of page 6:

For example, some sovereigns believe they are not obligated to pay a debt addressed to the fictitious person, in that the proper sovereign court filings can discharge that debt. Other filings, illegally presented as liens, may attempt to collect damages from government officials for violations of a sovereign citizen’s common law rights. Some sovereigns believe they can seize foreclosed homes and other real estate using “quit-claim deeds.” Some even believe they can arrest people who they think have violated the Constitution or common law. None of these techniques work, and all of them are illegal.
The failure of a government official to comply with the sovereign’s imagined rights and privileges is seen as a grave crime and even an “act of war.” Sovereigns may become violent when they perceive they are being denied the rights and privileges to which they feel entitled.


As you can see, the word “sovereign” modifying “citizens” is an adjective, but the two words “sovereign citizen” (singular) followed by another noun, becomes an adjective phrase, or followed by a verbs (and usually then plural), is a noun-phrase.  It’s a label — and for an intro saying how hard it is to define what is a sovereign citizen this author writes, June 2016 posting, as though he knows when to apply the label.  Then eventually he uses the adjective as a noun:  “sovereigns.”

Summary of this “sovereign” usage findings in just one sample — if you put these all together, the tendency through repetition (monotony) is to ignore the “s” word and associate the other nouns (or  verbs) tagged with “s” or “s-c” combinations.  What this looks like in this single piece.  First, the common nouns that got tagged to set up this jargon for readers (new or already familiar with it).  After the Abstract, which clearly summarizes “Dangerous” the nouns seem to escalate page by page…

  •  ideas – ideology – narrative – history – beliefs – movement – subculture – worldview – plots
  • (in proximity to or with this “s” or “s-c” tagging) threats




 When “sovereign” becomes a dirty word,  although it’s a legitimate word, with various usages and meanings throughout history, and an attempt it made to link it in usage with only bad stuff and nasty, dangerous people.

It’s a little tricky to discuss this; I have run across people very much into this movement, and am not an adherent.  Nevertheless, I am wondering how anyone who might be protesting, for example, the federalization or internationalization of so many levels of US Government (“Strong Cities”) being just one of them — might not get labeled “sovereign” for actually believing, for example, that the US ought to be functioning as a sovereign nation, and not as an extension of some other nation’s empire.  It is also no longer a matter of theory — the intention to “outflank” anything sovereign (i.e., such as country borders and integrity) through functionalism, when this has been so well documented through the RIIA/Chatham House, and the influence of David Mitrany on promoting this idea has been acknowledged in “international affairs,” a Council of Foreign Relations publication.  Two reminders, there are attempts to undermine Nation/States afoot and have been for many years already, that is, to erode “sovereignty” or in the words of the first callout of this article, to “Transfer sovereignty.”  Apparently in several circles, including those attempting to establish and international “order” — “sovereignty” is a really dirty word.

David Mitrany:  From Federalism to Functionalism, by Mihaly Alexandrescu (in a wordpress blog, 12/2008)

“Sovereignty cannot . . . be transferred effectively through a formula, only through a function.””

Functionalism is a theoretical approach which emerged towards the middle of the past century as an alternative to federalist designs concerning the organization of the international sys- tem. Starting from the criticism of the functionalist approach, many theorists sought to propose other theoretical alternatives. In time, functionalism got to be seen as a theory of European integration. Mitrany’s 1965 reaction to the evolution of the European project in the aftermath of World War Two highlighted his adversity to any formula involving regionalization.

In the present study, we shall proceed to analyze the intellectual background of Mitrany and his progression towards a functionalist approach, his ideas on international government, his comparison between federalism and functionalism, as well as the place occupied by Mitrany and his ideas in the historiography of international relations.

The United States is full of “functionalism” policymaking to this date.

Promoting Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood is one “function” for which other boundaries between branches of government, and between federal and state, were further dismantled, and power consolidated at the highest organizing level (grants and contracts administration, consolidation of power through administering them, plus technical assistance and training — who gets to be the trainers? etc.) to be distributed almost at will from those levels.

New networks and infrastructure were set up around the THEME (function).  Often, regionally (through HHS “regions” and through, for example, metropolitan regions. For example, I got a restraining order many years ago.  The geographic limitations of my ex’s not to removing the children while seeing them, at that time was “nine Bay Area Counties.”  That was the reach of that legal document. Why those 9 counties, and not a single county, or a certain driving distance (xxx miles) or anything that didn’t exactly coincide with, for the SF Bay Area, “ABAG” (regional planning agency)?

Another “function” is preventing Violence Against Women — and grants distributions & contracts, consolidation of power (through administering those grants and contracts,  plus technical assistance and training — who gets to be the trainers? etc.).

The list goes on and on, and at each point, some rights under state law are forfeited in honor of the federal policy, while the political clout tends to also follow that money, and the money (private comingled with federal agencies) was coming from those already in power.


As with the development of “fatherhood” as a field, now, the field of  “counter-extremism” MUST be developed, I guess:

The Program on Extremism at George Washington University’s Center for Cyber & Homeland Security provides analysis on issues related to violent and non-violent extremism. The Program spearheads innovative and thoughtful academic inquiry, producing empirical work that strengthens extremism research as a distinct field of study. The Program aims to develop pragmatic policy solutions that resonate with policymakers, civic leaders, and the general public.

Apparently in that order, too — as usual, the “general public” last. If it resonates with policymakers and civic leaders are going to apply the strategies, whether or not the general public approves anyhow…(“Civic leaders” don’t make policy?  What categories are meant by those two labels:  Are “civic leaders” local business (i.e., corporations) and/or leaders of local NON-PROFITs?)  This actually sounds like more public/private partnership business as usual….

A policy “solution” is only in respect to the problem.  So what’s the problem with NONviolent extremism?  A little messy when consensus IS needed at some levels of legislation and governance?

To achieve these objectives, the Program brings together a unique team of experts from various continents and a range of disciplines, including government officials with experience in public safety and law enforcement; scholars; former extremists; counter-extremism practitioners providing firsthand assistance to families grappling with radicalization

Meanwhile Brookings Institution continues with its Events and Experts — the same “Brookings” that has sponsored RonHaskins’ spoutings for a VERY long time, which then was a nice platform with which to hook up with Princeton “Center for Child Well-being” and in “The Future of the Children” push the marriage, and particularly fatherhood, with the Princeton pair being anchored by Sara McLanahan who just so happens to be married to Columbia University’s Irwin Garfinkel.  So we have the dynamic trio (at least) of university networked “welfare-reform” and “HMRF” (responsible fatherhood, etc.) hookup already in place.

(Wow.  Another of those websites that grabs YOUR website (WordPress’s anyhow) and, without  permission, reformats how their link displays on your page.  I will re-state this link with gaps in it so you can see the domain name (Brookings) and date: https://~www.brookings.edu/~2015/05/30/~ community-led-approaches-to-countering-violent-extremism-in-the-united-states/


As to terrorism, when the same medicine is being applied to “CVE” as to stop “DV,” with some variations according to the target market niche, I think that we have people that are more interested in the opportunity to rebuild communities, and insert mentors (everywhere) — i.e., control and monitoring — than the actual results.  All strategies are still based on theories, anyhow…

I know what it’s like to be terrorized — not as bad as some, but badly enough to flee, and eventually separate as I got tired of being BOTH battered, and threatened, and having to fight for basics, including basic human needs to be met, as well as the ability to work outside the home without taking punishment — or my children being punished for it — by their father, my husband.

If or when the justice system which is supposed to restrain “criminal” already has been re-aligned to simply re-define what is criminal (and let the behaviorists do the rest), taking advice from nations we fought a world war against (German) and a war for independence (the British empire, i.e., England // King George III, etc.) from  — well, than I think that’s time to make a very big noise when the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT fails to follow through for the public on reporting its own grants distributed under a law designed to stop violence, i.e., direct terrorism, injury, trauma, and sometimes death, aimed at women because they are women.  That’s what the VAWA incidentally, passed in 1994, is said to be about.

However, my observation in the post title is NOT limited to the OVW (Office of Violence Against Women) as that’s just one part of the USDOJ — and I don’t see the other parts divulging their information much, either.  Do you?

I have known this for quite a while, and had it brought home again when I went looking for specific grants, by number, on the USDOJ website, under an agency known to be administering them, after seeing these grants, by number, acknowledged on a public database.

Did you know that a US Department of Justice-Administered grant cannot even be searched by grant # on the USDOJ website?  Nor, that I can tell, are readers directed to another website which does, somewhere near the descriptions of the grant programs?  

Where are other people’s protests about this situation?  Where are people who actually understand that federal agencies distribute (administer) grants throughout the country (and to a degree, world) and that these agencies have a duty to report to US residents, who contribute to those re-distributed resources, what they are doing with them?

…And who understand that at an accounting level, this would include at least a FEW trackable data items — like the grant number  or maybe the CFDA under which it was authorized, “CFDA” being a designation used across federal agencies, and standing for the words “Category of Federal Domestic Assistance.”

I could go look at ‘USASpending.gov” but that database itself comes with a warning about using it, and its own quirks, and is hard to produce reports in useable form off-site.

The inability to reproduce search results off-site limits the public’s ability to discuss these programs in public seminars, power-points, or concerned citizens meetings.  It doesn’t completely eliminate that ability, it just makes it at such a high cost of time for low relevance (of available data) that even the most highly motivated might not be able to dig it out, let alone show others how to.

The USDOJ website, at least under the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) and under the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), does not encourage anyone to follow through on specific grants or specific grantees, and although the offices have been around MUCH longer, don’t date pre-date this century.  They don’t even go back to the year 2000.

Why would this same OVW (and trust me — the same applies to other agencies under the USDOJ) agency not put somewhere near its advertisements about what great things it’s accomplishing, or at least for what great causes, an electronic clearinghouse, accessible FOR FREE to the public, available at least on one searchable site (comparison:  TAGGS.hhs.gov for HHS agency) with plenty of fields to sort and select on, and some pre-set reports that can be run but flexibility to run others?

And, again, with at least one of those sort and select fields being the grant  number!!  SAMPLES BELOW:

Did you know that a US Department of Justice-Administered grant cannot even be searched by grant # on the USDOJ website? 

I looked again yesterday, seeking these grants mentioned in my last post — this section was looking at footer information on the website bwjp.org with reference to “BWJP” (Battered Women’s Justice Project) having a well-known name in this area, but not becoming a spin-off nonprofit until 2013, after years of being a project posing as a (corporate) “person” on website shared between organizations in two different states — MN and PA.  

This situation is deeply relevant to victims of domestic violence who go about to report it and expect that either the civil OR the criminal OR (under “civil,” but its own brand of “problem-solving” values- and incentives-driven venues), the family justice systems?  

For example, since the 1980s, the drive when it comes to “domestic violence” has been to refer to behavioral interventions for the batterers and professions set up for this.  This fits in well with the trend towards behavioral sciences as a gift from God as expressed in the organizational folk lore of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (check their “About Us/History ” page under the 1970s; I”m not going to quote it again here)… and the proliferation in the 1980s of specific fathers’ rights nonprofits, and by the 1990s, the connections to Congress, major tax-exempt foundations (Annie E. Casey, Ford, et al.) as to sponsorship and prominent as to social policies university centers (Columbia Population Research Center, etc.)

By definition, diversionary-oriented services are going to involved grants to and contracts with nonprofits, in many states.  So — where’s the comprehensive list?  And while plenty of women and mothers complain — often– about the quantity or quality of services received, what about a few complaints about lack of accountability for grants distributed to support organizations (or States, or Cities, or other government entities) providing those services?

Why am I picking on (if that’s the case) Minnesota? Or these specific groups in Minnesota (see my last post for a sample)?  Other than “why not?”…..

Well, for one….they actually are significant players in the “coordinated community response” being applied across state lines and across the sectors.  

They (these two specific organizations in Minnesota — now that one of them decided to belly-up to the bar and actually get a separate business identity, before which it was ONE primary sponsor of this theme within the state, as to the DV-prevention organizations) have also been party to and supporting the centralization of control of “domestic violence” as a field of expertise in the hands of those who agree with this approach.

Minnesota has also been a significant contributor to the trend towards treating domestic violence as a behavioral (vs. criminal) issue and towards insisting that including fathers’ rights groups in leadership positions (moreso than actual victims) along with the controlled, centralized and coordinated DV groups (as now funded so much by HHS and tax-exempts foundations).  Senator Paul and his wife Sheila Wellstone (until, unfortunately, about 2002) were also known to be promoters of this response to DV — “more supervised visitation.”  It’s not surprising in that this represents a progressive point of view.

From what I can tell, in general, maybe there’s also something in the water in the “land of many lakes” which makes people less prone than average to looking up their trusted organization’s tax-filing records.  Who knows?

I say “significant” in that the UMN has hosted the Jeffrey Edleson/Oliver Williams combo over at the School of Social Welfare (I believe is the exact name — easy to check) for so many years (29 for Dr. Edleson) and Edleson is known to be heavily involved in The Greenbook Initiative, which itself is a joint-project convened? or organized by two major players — one in the family court JUDICIAL sector, and the other in the domestic violence PREVENTION sector, i.e., (at the time) San Francisco’s “Family Violence Prevention Fund” (Greenbook Initiative, Years 2001-2008) with Jeffrey Edleson and Susan Schechter — this is as I recall (I can’t keep all details in the cognitive, quick-retrieval portions of my memory, but still that sector is functioning pretty well considering my age and the years of (BS) have been through involving these court systems, despite not being independently wealthy, a property owner, and or having ever run a business the courts might have seen fit to order themselves as recipients of its business income — which I have seen done before (thinking of a specific case in Georgia)…

Edleson is back in UC Berkeley now, this time as Dean of the School of Social Work, a place as I also recall, Meyer Elkin and others heavily involved in AFCC (Judith Wallerstein among them) had connections.  It’s that “social science/sociology” phenomena, where people cannot be simply expected to comply with the laws of the land, and prosecuted when it becomes clear they have no intention of doing so, with “deterrence” being a primary motivator in self-restraint and self-control.


The DV organizations within the state of Minnesota have been part of a critical network of co-ordinated consolidation and centralization of control for DECADES now, as I continue to tell residents of Minnesota with whom I have on-line or electronic contact (see posts this year for links to blogs).  I believe this type of generalized on-line/off-line (email) contact with MN-based bloggers has gone on now for about four years (since 2012).  However, they tend to follow groups and professionals, including some very activist ones from my area, that have affected the courts in THIS area so with a private agenda to NOT talk about federal agency grants as a factor in state divorce and child custody decisions when they have known — all along — about the existence and impact of these grants.

Rather than deal honestly with it, the same, from the State of California, flew cross-continentally for YEARS (10 years, it looks like, at least), to conference in places where battered mothers (the target clientele for consumption of products and services being marketed) could, typically, not afford to go.  Think that was accidental?  Could not a mid-continental yearly conference be run somehow, or one that alternated East Coast/West Coast?

The distance is nearly 3,000 miles.  By plane, train or car — that’s pricey and time-consuming:


Driving Distance San-Francisco CA Albany NY (BMCC conferences (2003ff in NY) Calif “Frequent-Flyer”presenters CPPA (org. 1999ff+CJE (org. ca. 2005ff) (or pdf from same web page.  A print to “pdf” saves a snapshot in time, one reason I do this so much on the blog.  Web pages tend to change, move, or disappear over time; as imperfect at “print to pdf” is, it still saves much of the information)

Driving Distance San-Francisco CA Albany NY (BMCC conferences (2003ff in NY) Calif %22Frequent-Flyer%22 presenters CPPA (org. 1999ff+CJE (org. ca. 2005ff)


I’ve documented on this blog (2014 or earlier) at the state level, budgets for air-fare to fly around for intervention-conventions (from Michigan) for marriage/fatherhood promotion and as I recall, batterers’ intervention conferences.

I just recently documented an intercontinental flight, BOTH WAYS, for similar but not identical behavioral intervention programming “technical assistance and training” from Minnesota to Germany, under “CVE” (countering violent extremism).  Yet locally, how is not killing one’s former spouse or children,s talking them, terrorizing them, threatening to kill, or stealing the children called “violent extremism” when it happens to be directed towards the female of the species (Homo sapiens)?? Incidents surrounding custody exchanges or debate have killed innocent passers-by and occurred in public places; one time I recall in this state, seven or eight people died, and multiple victims including non-family members has occurred in other cases.

Some of these occurred during court-ordered visitation time on the basis of federal knowledge of what type of families are “best” for the public, and what are a social scourge and drain on welfare funding (allegedly),


Showing that the USDOJ apparently lacks any  Functional Database Even Posting Grant #s… as to the OVW website although there’s plenty of other verbiage on the actual grants programs.

Regarding Grants Distributed from the Office of Violence Against Women (“OVW”), I posted:

Who funds the website?  Fine print at the bottom of the page says:

Funded by the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) , Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Family and Youth Services Bureau, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)See Details.

I did (just now) “See Details” and notice that while “GRANT” details are given for the website and “this project” the grantees of those grants are NOT named in the “Details” nor is the reader prompted to anywhere to look it up.  “Go fish, if you’re that curious, or smart enough to know that this information wasn’t the full catch” is the implication.

This website was {was ??} supported by Grant No. 2015-TA-AX-K058, 2015-TA-AX-K027, 2013-TA-AX-K012, 2013-TA-AX-K037, 2014-TA-AX-K046, and 2015-TA-AX-K039  awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women , U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this website are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women

I almost re-interrupted my own post sequence to post on this.  You can search the internet, laboriously and pick up documenting citing to one or more of these grants by Grant # (hint – try NCJFCJ — National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges financial statements), but even within the USDOJ which it seems gives grants from 2010 ONLY and and by EITHER State (and separately for each year) OR by Program (i.e., public is supposed to know and remember all their program names, which change over the years), and at NO point searchable across programs or across years by Grantee.  The pages to plow through look like this, and don’t look under “Grantees” (which is directions to current or future grantees) but under “Awards”.  FOR EXAMPLE:

Office of Violence Against Women being just ONE of many, these are its list of grant award categories — (I only included the first eight, apparently one-third, of the “discretionary” listing.  Notice the first one is “consolidated”):

The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) currently administers 24 grant programs authorized by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 and subsequent legislation. Four programs are “formula,” meaning the enacting legislation specifies how the funds are to be distributed.

Right there is an admission that 5/6ths ( or 20/24ths), how funds are to be distributed is NOT specified in the enacting legislation, but left “discretionary.”  That puts a lot of power in the hands of whoever runs the VAWA, then, right? They are to make sure it’s still “in accordance” with authorizing legislation, though…

The remaining 20 programs, including six formerly authorized programs that still have open and/or active grants, are “discretionary,” meaning OVW is responsible for creating program parameters, qualifications, eligibility, and deliverables in accordance with authorizing legislation. These grant programs are designed to develop the nation’s capacity to reduce domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking by strengthening services to victims and holding offenders accountable.

Download the List of OVW Grant Programs (PDF)

SO interesting that the purpose of these grant programs are not to directly reduce any of these negative behaviors, only “the nation’s CAPACITY to reduce” those behaviors….  many of which are simply crimes.. and part of how to do this is by “strengthening services to victims.”

Formula Grant Programs

STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program

Sexual Assault Services Formula Grant Program

State and Territorial Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Coalitions Program

Grants to Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions Program 

Discretionary Grant Programs

Consolidated Grant Program to Address Children and Youth Experiencing Domestic and Sexual Assault and Engage Men and Boys as Allies

Enhanced Training and Services to End Abuse in Later Life Program

Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program

Grants to Enhance Culturally Specific Services for Victims of Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence,  and Stalking Program

Grants for Outreach and Services to Underserved Populations

Grants to Reduce Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking on Campus Program

Grants to Support Families in the Justice System

Legal Assistance for Victims Grant Program

. . .  and there are several more where those came from.  NOW, look at how you as a public viewer, get to hunt for grants, or grantees, having perhaps the name of a grant — or the name of a grantee.  Like, for example, if you thought “Battered Womens Justice Project” (legal name doesn’t show the apostrophe) was actually a grantee.  To view this I clicked sidebar on “Awards”:

https://www.justice.gov/ovw/awards (presumably other agency awards might be found by switching their initials for “ovw” in the above URL, for example, “OJJDP”.  (Just tried — nope).


Click apparently they only started tracking by program in 2010?  Or we’re supposed to believe this only started in 2010, and by state, in 2005, although the office was started around 1994 or 1995…  Where are all the grants previous to then — on a “NOYB” (“none-of-your-business”) status to the public?

Notice on this page (I gave the link) no nice introduction or sales pitch — just the plain old grants — segregated by year under each sub-category.  Supposed I wanted a grant total over a span of years– how many clicks, how many copy & paste, or hand-written/typewritten notes, must a person make?  Is this PERHAPS designed to DISCOURAGE lookups?

I picked a year — 2010 — to compare “by program” and “by State.”  Here’s By State from Minnesota.  Notice — does it appear to be alphabetized or sorted by ANY of the existing columns?

Are all grants to the same organization in one place?  Are these chronological (but no column for “awarded” date).  Why is their no column simply labeled “Grantee TYPE” and an indicator government (and level) or “private”? (or, DUNS# which grantees MUST have….).  Why is there no labeling of under what CFDA (a federal designation across agencies) for EACH action, i.e., as a separate column?

MOST significantly — where’s the label “Grant Award #” and anything looking like the ones showing up on public websites, i.e., actual number:  “2013-TA-AX-K012” or similar?? Good grief!  This section is part of a very long webpage containing all the states’ grants for the year; it shows up under an interactive map of the United States so as to jump to that section on a page.  Unfortunately after here (try and you’ll see) it’s a dead end.  no more active links, and “just a few” fields of information (let alone indicators of how it’s organized) are missing…..

They didn’t even bother to right- or decimal-align numbers.  But out of a subtotal (that state, that year) of $12M grants under OVW, notice who got the larger ones, and who got several, not all shown in consecutive rows, that is, in one part of the chart.

YEAR 2010 — by STATE.  Compare with Year 2016, below it:

Praxis International Duluth $92,993 OVW TABridge FY 2010
Casa de Esperanza Saint Paul $167,352 OVW TABridge FY 2010
Praxis International Duluth $336,635 OVW TABridge FY 2010
Regents of the University of Minnesota Minneapolis $70,000 OVW TA Bridge FY 2010
Minnesota Indian Women’s Sexual Assault Coalition St. Paul $430,000 OVW Tribal Coal FY10
Itasca County Grand Rapids $350,000 OVW Supervised FY 10
County of St. Louis Duluth $350,000 OVW Supervised FY 10
Minnesota Coalition For Battered Women St. Paul $98,461 OVW State Coal FY 10
Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs Duluth $450,000 OVW Disability 2010
State of Minnesota St. Paul $187,961 OVW SASP FY 2010
Sacred Spirits Callaway $300,000 OVW SASP CSS FY 2010
Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians Red Lake $300,000 OVW FY10 CTAS 5 TSAS
Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault St. Paul $117,986 OVW State Coal FY 10
Praxis International Duluth $589,997 OVW TA FY 2010
White Earth Reservation Tribal Council White Earth $824,632 OVW FY10 CTAS 6 TGP
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Cass Lake $399,957 OVW FY10 CTAS 6 TGP
Bois Forte Band Of Chippewa Indians Nett Lake $711,729 OVW FY10 CTAS 6 TGP
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Onamia $754,330 OVW FY10 CTAS 6 TGP
Mending the Sacred Hoop Duluth $266,822 OVW CLSSP FY 2010
Asian Women United of Minnesota Minneapolis $280,780 OVW CLSSP FY 2010
7th Judicial District Court of Minnesota St. Paul $263,316 OVW Courts FY 2010
County of Anoka Anoka $400,000 OVW Arrest FY 2010
City of Saint Paul Saint Paul $400,000 OVW Arrest FY 2010
State of Minnesota St. Paul $2,317,037 OVW STOP FY 2010
Women’s Shelter, Inc Rochester $232,467 OVW Housing FY 2010
Battered Women’s Legal Advocacy Project Minneapolis $412,980 OVW LAV FY 2010
White Earth Reservation Tribal Council White Earth $449,666 OVW LAV FY 2010
Program for Aid to Victims of Sexual Assault Inc Duluth $299,228 OVW LAV FY 2010
Tubman Minneapolis $300,000 OVW Youth Serv FY 10
Casa de Esperanza Saint Paul $300,000 OVW Youth Serv FY 10
Subtotals $ 12,454,329 30

Contrast with Year 2016:

Footnote “OCCASIONAL PAPERS” list from Program on Violent Extremism/Publications  viewed 8/15/2016

Occasional Papers

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

August 31, 2018 at 6:54 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: