FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEVER STOP MEDIA DEMANDS IMMEDIATE ANSWERS AFTER INFORMATION INDICATES SOJOURNER FAMILY PEACE CENTER CIRCULATED JOURNALIST’S PHOTOGRAPH IN BUILDING-WIDE BOLO AND RESIDENTS WERE WARNED OF ALLEGED

SEPTEMBER 11 THREAT

Independent investigative journalist Kevin Glowicki categorically denies ever threatening Sojourner Family Peace Center and is demanding preservation and production of the original BOLO, the underlying alleged threat report, and every communication showing how an allegation that he posed a threat to the facility originated and spread.

MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN — September 4, 2026 — Never Stop Media is demanding immediate answers from Sojourner Family Peace Center after Kevin Glowicki, an independent investigative journalist and recently discharged resident of the domestic-violence shelter, received information indicating that Sojourner has circulated his photograph in a building-wide BOLO and that residents have been warned that Glowicki allegedly intended to “do something” to the building on September 11, with the warning reportedly being communicated to residents in terms that caused them to believe he might “blow it up.”

Glowicki categorically denies ever making any such threat. He states that he has never threatened to bomb, blow up, attack, shoot, commit terrorism against, or perpetrate mass violence at Sojourner Family Peace Center, its residents, its employees, its children, or anyone associated with the organization.

The information received by Never Stop Media is not being presented as proof that every reported statement was communicated exactly as described. Never Stop Media is demanding the original institutional records precisely because the allegations are too serious to leave to competing recollections. If a building-wide BOLO was created, the document exists. If a mass email or internal security communication was distributed, electronic records should exist. If Glowicki actually made a threat involving September 11 or an attack on the building, an underlying contemporaneous threat report should exist. Those records can establish what was said, who said it, when it was said, who transformed it into an institutional warning, and how widely it was disseminated.

What makes the development particularly serious is the apparent difference between what Glowicki says he was told when Sojourner removed him on September 2 and what he has now been informed was subsequently communicated inside the institution. Glowicki states that when he was removed, he was told there were “reports” that he had threatened someone. He denied threatening anyone and requested meaningful information concerning the allegation. According to Glowicki, he was never told that he threatened to bomb the building, never told that he intended to attack the building, never told that he intended to commit violence on September 11, and never told that Sojourner considered him a potential terrorism or mass-violence threat.

That creates an urgent and objectively testable question: When did the September 11/building-attack allegation originate?

If that allegation existed before Glowicki's removal, Never Stop Media is demanding production and preservation of the contemporaneous evidence establishing exactly what was reported. If it emerged after his removal, the organization is demanding records establishing who introduced the allegation, when it was introduced, what evidence supposedly supported it, who approved its dissemination, and how broadly it was communicated.

The distinction matters because the consequences of circulating a person's photograph while associating that person with a potential attack on a domestic-violence facility are not confined to reputational harm. Such an allegation can create an immediate physical-safety risk. Security personnel, residents, institutional partners, members of the public, and potentially law-enforcement officers who encounter the person may do so believing they are confronting somebody preparing an act of mass violence. That can fundamentally alter the perceived threat level of an otherwise ordinary encounter.

“This is not somebody calling me a liar, a bad journalist, difficult, unstable, or an asshole,” Glowicki said. “If what I have been informed is accurate, my photograph is being circulated while people are being warned that I am going to do something to a domestic-violence facility on September 11 and are being left with the belief that I may blow the building up. I never made that threat. That is not gossip. That is an accusation capable of getting somebody hurt.”

The development occurs against the backdrop of an extensive Never Stop Media investigation into Sojourner Family Peace Center that was substantially developed before Glowicki's September 2 removal. The investigation examines the shelter's financial structure, public funding, survivor access to resources, housing and transition planning, safety planning, confidentiality and surveillance concerns, child-safety concerns, disability accommodation, policies and grievance procedures, security, institutional accountability, and whether survivors are actually being given meaningful access to the network of services represented by the Family Peace Center model.

The investigation's central systems finding is straightforward: survivors should not have to investigate the institution they entered for help simply to discover what help exists.

Glowicki states that while living inside Sojourner he was not provided a comprehensive, usable inventory explaining available programs, resources, housing pathways, financial assistance, partner services, specialized safety interventions, continued-stay possibilities, or the people responsible for coordinating those systems. Information frequently traveled informally between residents, with women learning about potential resources from other women who had themselves heard about them from other residents or organizations outside Sojourner. Glowicki repeatedly sought additional information and says he still left without a comprehensive understanding of what resources were actually available.

“I had to investigate the institution I was living inside to discover what the institution could supposedly do for me,” Glowicki said. “I am an investigative journalist. Finding information people do not readily give me is part of what I do for a living, and I still do not have the complete answer. If that is what happened to me, what happens to the woman who arrives traumatized, terrified, exhausted, caring for children, hiding from an offender, trying to keep her job, and assuming the domestic-violence professionals around her are going to tell her what help exists?”

The investigation also examines Sojourner's financial records and the relationship between organizational expenditures, direct financial assistance, government funding, funded purposes, and survivor outcomes. The latest Form 990 analyzed by Never Stop Media reflects approximately $9.52 million in annual organizational expenses, including approximately $6.7 million classified as program-service expenses. Schedule I identifies approximately $81,593 in specifically itemized direct financial assistance across 1,883 recipient instances. Clothing and food gift cards accounted for 826 instances, bus tickets for 531, and gas gift cards for 202. Rent and security-deposit assistance totaled approximately $6,000 across six instances, while emergency housing and hotel assistance totaled approximately $5,000 across five instances.

Never Stop Media does not contend that the difference between total program-service expenses and Schedule I direct assistance represents missing money. They are different accounting categories. The investigation instead asks what those expenditures purchased, what publicly funded deliverables were required, whether survivors knew the resulting services existed, whether they could meaningfully access them, and what measurable outcomes followed.

“A bus ticket is not housing. A gift card is not stabilization. An Uber ride is not systems coordination. A referral is not an outcome. A resource that exists administratively but remains unknown to the survivor can be functionally nonexistent from the survivor's point of view,” Glowicki said.

The investigation has now expanded to include the circumstances surrounding Glowicki's September 2 removal and the reported subsequent dissemination of the BOLO and September 11 allegation. Never Stop Media emphasizes that the investigation preceded the removal and should not be mischaracterized as the reaction of a former resident who became dissatisfied after being discharged.

Glowicki has issued a supplemental legal preservation demand requiring Sojourner to preserve the alleged BOLO and every related email, security bulletin, photograph, threat report, incident report, case note, internal message, distribution list, resident communication, law-enforcement communication, video, audio recording, access log, metadata record, revision history, and other record capable of establishing the origin and evolution of the allegation.

The preservation demand is expected to focus particularly on chronology. If somebody actually reported a September 11 bombing or building-attack threat, the original report matters. If the original report described something materially different and the allegation escalated as it moved through the institution, that matters too. Original records and metadata can establish the difference.

Never Stop Media is also demanding immediate cessation and correction of any demonstrably false statement asserting that Glowicki threatened to bomb, blow up, attack, or commit mass violence against Sojourner Family Peace Center. Glowicki intends to pursue civil remedies if documentary evidence establishes actionable defamation and has stated that he will request review by appropriate authorities of any criminal statutes potentially implicated by the evidence.

Wisconsin maintains both civil remedies for actionable defamation and a criminal defamation statute, Wis. Stat. § 942.01. Never Stop Media is not declaring that any person or organization has committed a crime. Criminal liability requires proof of statutory elements and is determined through the justice system. Glowicki's position is that if documentary evidence establishes intentional dissemination of knowingly false defamatory accusations satisfying Wisconsin law, he intends to provide that evidence to appropriate authorities and request review.

Never Stop Media is deliberately withholding information that could identify confidential journalistic sources. No source identity will be disclosed merely because the information provided has become consequential. Instead, the organization is seeking independent documentary corroboration through the original institutional records.

Glowicki also emphasized that the investigation is not an effort to eliminate Milwaukee's largest coordinated domestic-violence institution. “I have said this repeatedly: I do not want Sojourner destroyed. I want it to work. Milwaukee needs it to work. The women and children inside it need it to work. But protecting an institution because its mission is important cannot mean refusing to investigate whether the institution is accomplishing that mission or whether serious mistakes are occurring inside it.”

The reported BOLO raises precisely that accountability question. An institution charged with protecting people from violence has an obligation to respond seriously to legitimate threats. That responsibility makes accuracy more important, not less important. If a genuine threat was made, the evidence should establish it. If no such threat was made, associating a person's photograph with an alleged September 11 attack creates its own serious safety consequences.

Never Stop Media is therefore calling for immediate preservation of all evidence, production of the original BOLO and underlying threat documentation, identification of the factual basis for the reported September 11 allegation, correction of any materially false communications, and independent examination of how the allegation originated and spread.

The question is no longer whether somebody thought Kevin Glowicki was difficult, angry, critical, disruptive, or unwelcome. The question is whether an institution circulated the photograph of a journalist investigating that institution while associating him with an alleged September 11 attack that he says he never threatened. That question has a documentary answer. Never Stop Media intends to find it.

MEDIA CONTACT

Never Stop Media LLC
Kevin Glowicki
Independent Investigative Journalist

neverstopvoices@gmail.com

Supporting documentation, the Institutional Systems Review, financial analysis, and additional records are available to credentialed journalists and appropriate oversight authorities. Confidential-source identities and source-identifying materials will not be released.