Sojourner Family Peace Center Retaliates Against Investigative Journalist as Bomb-Threat Allegations Raise Questions About What the Shelter Is Trying to Hide

Never Stop Media founder Kevin Glowicki categorically denies ever threatening Sojourner Family Peace Center, its residents, employees, children, or building. What began as an investigation into survivor safety, public funding, institutional accountability and conditions inside one of Milwaukee's most prominent domestic-violence organizations has now escalated into something far more dangerous: an apparent institutional threat narrative involving September 11, a reported building-wide BOLO containing Glowicki's photograph, and information indicating residents may have been warned to stay away from the shelter with their children because of a supposed threat attributed to him.

If you have followed Never Stop Media for any length of time, then you already know something about me: I do not treat false allegations against me lightly, and I sure as hell do not disappear when somebody tries to destroy my credibility because they do not like what I am investigating. I have spent years investigating government agencies, businesses, law enforcement, public officials and individuals who believed attacking the journalist was easier than answering the evidence. I have been called an agitator, stalker, criminal, liar and threat before, and I have watched people make extraordinary allegations against me only to discover that Never Stop Media does something they apparently did not anticipate: we keep the records, preserve the video, obtain the documents, file the open-records requests, reconstruct the timeline and then make people prove what they said. Sojourner Family Peace Center is now going to get that same treatment.

I entered Sojourner Family Peace Center as a domestic-violence victim seeking safety. I did not enter Sojourner Family Peace Center as an investigative journalist looking for a story. I entered as a victim of domestic violence looking for safety. What happened after I entered that building gradually forced those two identities into collision. I began seeing and documenting questions involving survivor safety, institutional transparency, access to services, discharge practices, disability accommodation, confidentiality, child safety, surveillance, public funding and whether residents actually understood what resources were supposedly available to them. Eventually those questions became too serious for me to ignore simply because I happened to be living inside the institution I was investigating. I started asking questions, requesting policies and documenting what I was seeing. Then Sojourner removed me, and now somebody has apparently decided that Kevin Glowicki is a threat to the building on September 11.

There is one problem with that narrative: I never made that threat. I never threatened to bomb Sojourner Family Peace Center, attack Sojourner Family Peace Center, “do something” to the building on September 11, commit mass violence, harm residents, harm children, harm employees or engage in any act of terrorism. I never told residents to get themselves or their children out of the building because something was going to happen. If Sojourner Family Peace Center possesses evidence establishing otherwise, Never Stop Media is demanding that they preserve it, produce it and identify exactly who heard me say it, exactly where I supposedly said it, exactly when I supposedly said it, exactly what words I supposedly used and exactly what contemporaneous evidence corroborates the accusation.

This is no longer an internal disagreement between a shelter and a former resident because this allegation can get somebody killed. Attaching a journalist's name and photograph to an allegation involving a domestic-violence shelter, September 11 and a prospective threat against a building is not some harmless administrative notation. If that information travels to security personnel, police officers, government agencies, partner organizations or anybody else who interprets the communication as identifying me as a potential mass-violence or terrorism threat, it can fundamentally alter how those people encounter me. A police officer approaching someone believed to be a journalist is one thing. A police officer approaching someone who has been characterized as a prospective attacker of a domestic-violence shelter is something entirely different. False information of that magnitude does not merely threaten my reputation. It can threaten my physical safety.

The danger does not stop with me. If residents of a domestic-violence shelter were actually told or led to believe that a former resident intended to blow up or attack the building, then the people exposed to that communication were themselves domestic-violence survivors and their children. These are people who may already be living with stalking, threats, displacement, financial instability, coercive control, custody problems, trauma activation and fear that the person they escaped will find them. Telling that population that the building in which they sought safety may itself become the target of an attack can fundamentally alter whether remaining there feels safe. Where exactly were those women and children supposed to go?

That question matters because domestic-violence safety is not created merely by telling someone to leave a dangerous location. Safety depends upon whether another safe location actually exists. A woman who fled an abusive partner does not suddenly acquire safe housing because somebody tells her not to bring her children to the shelter on September 11, and a survivor without money, transportation, family support or alternative housing does not magically obtain those resources because the institution introduces another perceived threat into her decision-making environment. An abusive partner's home does not have to become objectively safe for it to begin looking comparatively safer to someone who has just been told that her current shelter may become the target of mass violence. That is why Never Stop Media is not investigating this solely as an attack against me. We are investigating what this communication may have done to the very survivors Sojourner Family Peace Center exists to protect, and whether the institution's response to scrutiny has itself now become part of the underlying story.

The timing makes that question impossible to ignore. By the time this threat narrative appeared, Never Stop Media's investigation into Sojourner Family Peace Center already existed. I had already been requesting policies, asking questions about services, raising concerns about surveillance, documenting problems involving resident access to information, questioning disability accommodations, examining public funding and institutional relationships, and communicating concerns outside the organization. The investigation did not begin because Sojourner removed me. The investigation preceded the removal. That chronology does not by itself prove motive, but it makes retaliation an unavoidable investigative question because Sojourner now has to explain the evidence underlying what happened next.

READ THE FULL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT:

The significance of that chronology became substantially more serious when information obtained by Never Stop Media indicated that an apparent internal Sojourner record dated September 2 carries the title “Threat to Building Plan on 9/11/2026.” The apparent case-note language records an allegation that a resident reported seeing me at a gas station and that I supposedly said I was planning to “do something to the building on 9/11.” I categorically deny making that statement. I do not know what resident is supposedly making the allegation, what gas station is supposedly involved, when this supposed conversation took place or what evidence Sojourner relied upon before elevating that accusation into whatever internal and external communications followed.

For the person who made that accusation, however, there is now a very simple problem: you made the allegation specific enough to investigate. Which resident? Which gas station? What date? What time? Where exactly did this alleged conversation occur? How did the resident identify me? Who was present? What were the exact words supposedly used? Was the allegation made immediately after the supposed encounter or later? Was it written down contemporaneously? Did the reporting person communicate it verbally, by text, by email or through another resident? Was surveillance available from the gas station? Was the resident actually there? Was I actually there? Were there purchases, cameras, cell-phone records, witnesses or communications capable of corroborating the encounter? Those are ordinary investigative questions, and the allegation is now sufficiently specific that the answers should exist somewhere if the encounter actually occurred.

The exact timing of the internal record matters just as much. A date of September 2 does not establish whether the note was created before I was removed, during my removal, after I left the building or hours later after additional conversations occurred. Native system records and audit logs should resolve that by establishing the exact creation timestamp, who entered the information, whether it was subsequently edited, who accessed it, whether other records preceded it and whether the severity of the accusation increased after my discharge. Because metadata does not care about anybody's public-relations strategy. The records will either support Sojourner's chronology or destroy it.

That question may become one of the most important parts of this investigation because there is a substantial difference between an allegation that somebody said he was “planning to do something to the building on 9/11” and communications that cause residents to believe that same person intends to blow up the building or commit some form of terrorist attack. If that language escalated while traveling through Sojourner, Never Stop Media intends to determine exactly where the escalation occurred, who was responsible for it and what evidence justified it. That is not semantics. That is the difference between an ambiguous accusation and being portrayed as a prospective terrorist.

Information obtained by Never Stop Media has also raised serious questions concerning whether a building-wide BOLO or similar communication containing my photograph was distributed in connection with the allegation and whether residents were warned not to be at the building and to have their children out of the facility on September 11. Never Stop Media has not independently obtained the original BOLO at the time of this writing. That is precisely why the original institutional document, its native metadata, distribution records, photographs, recipient lists and related communications have been demanded for preservation and production.

If the BOLO exists, I want the original and every version of it. I want to know who authored it, who approved it, where my photograph came from, when the photograph was added, what caption accompanied it, whether the alleged threat was summarized accurately, whether language concerning bombing or terrorism was added, and exactly who received it. I want to know whether law enforcement received it, whether security personnel received it, whether outside partner agencies received it, whether residents received a warning based upon it and whether the allegation entered any police officer-safety, intelligence, CAD or threat-assessment system that could affect how armed officers perceive me during a future encounter. You cannot attach September 11 to somebody's photograph and pretend there are no consequences.

This is not me complaining that somebody said something mean about me or some social-media argument where people trade insults and everyone moves on the next day. Associating a person's identity and photograph with a prospective attack against a domestic-violence shelter has foreseeable real-world consequences because police officers, security personnel, government employees and partner organizations do not interpret “former resident with a complaint” the same way they interpret “possible September 11 threat against a building full of women and children.” That distinction can affect whether somebody points a gun at me before I ever get the opportunity to explain that the accusation was false.

NEVER STOP MEDIA'S PRESS RELEASE:

That is why I have done the exact opposite of hiding from the accusation. A Sensitive Crimes detective who had already been reviewing materials I provided before these events escalated has been notified and asked to independently investigate the allegation. Beth Gritzmacher with the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office located inside the Family Peace Center has been notified. Members of the Milwaukee Common Council have been notified, and Sojourner leadership, staff and board members have been placed on formal notice while preservation demands have been issued. I am not asking anybody to take my word for it. Investigate me. Pull the records, establish my movements, identify the alleged witness, identify the gas station, obtain the original report, compare that report against the internal case note, compare the internal case note against the reported BOLO, compare the BOLO against whatever residents were told, and determine whether the description became more serious as it traveled.

Put me under oath and put the person accusing me under oath. Preserve the surveillance, metadata and communications and let investigators reconstruct the chronology from records instead of after-the-fact explanations. If the allegation is true, the evidence should establish it. If it is not, the same evidentiary process should establish how a false or materially distorted accusation moved through a domestic-violence institution and potentially outward into systems capable of affecting both my reputation and my physical safety.

The Investigation That Existed Before September 2

This allegation did not arise in a vacuum. Before any September 11 threat narrative appeared, I had already been investigating serious institutional questions inside Sojourner, and one of the biggest findings involved something so basic that it should never have required an investigation in the first place: residents were not being given a comprehensive map of what help actually existed. The problem was not that Sojourner maintained some enormous visible network of services and survivors simply struggled to navigate it. The problem was more fundamental. I was never given a comprehensive list of programs, a meaningful inventory of resources, a roadmap showing partner agencies, housing pathways, financial assistance, law-enforcement resources, safety programs, legal resources, extension or continued-stay options, disability-accommodation procedures, grievance procedures or the people responsible for coordinating those resources.

I asked questions because I genuinely did not know what existed, and much of the information moving through the shelter came from residents themselves. One woman would hear something from another woman. Somebody would independently find an outside organization and bring information back. Somebody else would hear about a program and tell the rest of us, after which I would ask Sojourner whether that resource existed and whether I might qualify. In other words, residents themselves were functioning as an informal information and case-management network because the institution was not functioning as a reliable one. I had to investigate the institution I was living inside to discover what the institution could supposedly do for me.

READ THE FULL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT:

That sentence should disturb anyone involved in domestic-violence services. A survivor should not need investigative-journalism experience to learn what assistance is available inside the shelter housing that survivor. A resource that exists administratively but remains unknown to the person who needs it can be functionally nonexistent from the survivor's point of view. Availability is an institutional fact. Access is a survivor experience. The system should make itself visible to the survivor. It should not require the survivor to excavate it.

Surveillance was another issue already under investigation. Before my removal, I specifically asked whether the surveillance system recorded audio, and residents had not, in my experience, been provided notice that private conversations were being audio recorded. The distinction between video surveillance and audio surveillance inside a domestic-violence shelter is enormous because a camera may reveal where a survivor is, while a microphone may reveal where she intends to go. The period immediately before my discharge and immediately surrounding the creation of the September 11 threat allegation may now be capable of reconstruction through the very surveillance systems I had already been questioning, which is why Never Stop Media has demanded preservation of video, any available audio, system configuration, technical architecture, retention settings, access logs, administrator logs, installation records, vendor records and records showing who could access or review surveillance during the relevant period.

If the system did not record audio, technical evidence should establish that. If it did record audio, then the investigation changes substantially because residents were not, to my knowledge, told that their private conversations were being recorded. Verification replaces intuition. I do not need to guess what the system did if the technical records exist.

I had also raised disability-accommodation concerns, including why I could receive transportation assistance for medical appointments yet have difficulty obtaining something as simple as an appropriate chair that provided back support while I was living with significant back pain. I had raised safety and confidentiality concerns and questioned why written rules governing what residents must do seemed far easier to obtain than written policies governing what Sojourner itself must do. Sojourner communicates rules governing what residents must do. My document requests asked for the rules governing what Sojourner must do. That distinction was part of the investigation before I was removed, not something created afterward to justify my anger about being discharged.

Then there were the financial questions. Never Stop Media began examining Sojourner's publicly available financial filings, government grants, public relationships and what the public is actually entitled to infer from institutional financial reporting. I do not believe a Form 990 proves whether survivors were helped or failed because program-service expense is an accounting classification, not an outcome measure. A bus ticket can be help. A hotel night can be help. A rent deposit can be help. A counseling appointment can be help. Those are all legitimate forms of assistance, but they can produce very different outcomes. A person fleeing domestic violence does not live inside a Form 990. That survivor lives inside the question of whether she has somewhere safe to sleep tomorrow.

That is why Never Stop Media began asking a much harder question than how much money Sojourner raised or what percentage was classified as program services. For every dollar classified as program service, what did that dollar purchase, who received the resulting service, and what happened afterward? If thousands of people were served, what did “served” actually mean? Did someone obtain stable housing, or did someone receive a bus ticket? Both can be help. They are not the same help.

All of those questions were already in motion before September 2. The resource-access investigation, surveillance questions, policy requests, disability concerns, financial review and survivor-safety issues preceded my removal. Then I was removed, an internal record apparently appeared bearing the title “Threat to Building Plan on 9/11/2026,” and information subsequently arose concerning a reported building-wide BOLO or similar communication containing my photograph and warnings to residents concerning September 11. I am supposed to look at that sequence and not investigate retaliation? I am treating retaliation as a central investigative theory because the chronology makes it impossible not to.

That does not mean Never Stop Media has already determined which individual made which decision or whether every decision was unlawful. It means the chronology creates a direct evidentiary question: did Sojourner respond to scrutiny by identifying and responding to an independently credible threat, or did scrutiny become entangled with a process that progressively transformed the investigative journalist asking uncomfortable questions into the perceived threat himself? The records will answer that question far better than anybody's retrospective explanation.

READ THE ORIGINAL SOJOURNER INVESTIGATIVE ARTICLE: 

When The Institution Starts Looking For The Source Instead Of Answering The Evidence

There is now another development that increases the importance of preserving those records. Never Stop Media has obtained information raising serious questions about whether adverse employment consequences may be occurring inside Sojourner in close temporal proximity to this investigation and communications surrounding it. Never Stop Media will not publicly disclose source-identifying or legally protected information and will not provide breadcrumbs that allow an institution to reverse-engineer the identity of protected journalistic sources. The public does not need the identity of a source to understand why personnel actions connected to this investigation may matter.

If recent personnel decisions, disciplinary actions, terminations, suspensions, schedule changes, access removals, management communications or human-resources actions occurred because employees communicated with me, possessed information relevant to the investigation, raised concerns, preserved evidence or objected to institutional conduct, those records may become highly material to the retaliation investigation. If nobody was punished for communicating with me, the records should establish that. If somebody was, the records should establish that too. The question is not who talked to the journalist. The question is whether the institution can substantiate what it said about the journalist and whether anyone inside the institution faced consequences because information relevant to that inquiry existed.

That distinction should matter enormously to Sojourner's board of directors. The board should not simply route these allegations back through the same management structure whose conduct is now being questioned and accept whatever summary returns. The original records should be preserved independently, the chronology reconstructed, personnel decisions examined, security communications reviewed and the actual threat assessment compared against the institutional response. If the records support management, then the records support management. If they do not, the board needs to know that too.

If The Threat Was Real, Where Is The Response?

If Sojourner genuinely believed I intended to attack the Family Peace Center on September 11, then its behavior should reflect the severity of that belief. There should be evidence showing what threat assessment occurred, what communications were made with law enforcement, what security escalation took place, what emergency planning occurred, what alternative shelter arrangements were made for women and children supposedly being told not to be in the building, whether children's programming changed, whether government partners were notified and what planning existed for residents who had nowhere else to go. The Family Peace Center is not an empty warehouse. It contains survivors, children, employees, prosecutors, law-enforcement personnel and partner agencies. A genuinely credible prospective attack against that environment should leave a documentary footprint.

What did Sojourner actually do when nobody was watching, compared with what Sojourner told frightened survivors they should believe? The absence of any single action would not prove the allegation was fabricated, but institutional behavior is evidence. If an organization communicates an extraordinary threat outward while behaving internally as though no extraordinary threat exists, that discrepancy requires explanation.

The survivor consequences require the same scrutiny. If women were actually told to remove themselves and their children from the building on September 11, domestic-violence survivors did not suddenly acquire unlimited safe alternatives because the institution introduced another danger into their environment. Some survivors may have little money, no transportation, children to care for, employment constraints, custody issues, restraining orders or abusers actively trying to locate them. Agency does not manufacture alternatives. A survivor can only choose among the options that actually exist.

If a shelter becomes perceived as unsafe because residents are told that somebody may attack it, previously rejected destinations can suddenly re-enter the decision process. A friend's overcrowded apartment may begin looking acceptable. A car may begin looking acceptable. A hotel somebody cannot afford may become a desperate option. Even an abusive partner's residence may begin looking comparatively less dangerous. That is why the question is not merely whether Sojourner's alleged communication defamed me. The question is what communicating that allegation did to everybody who was told to be afraid of me.

Never Stop Media does not presently have evidence establishing that a particular survivor returned to an abuser or suffered a particular psychological injury because of this warning, and I am not going to manufacture evidence that does not exist. But an independent investigation should determine whether residents left, kept children away, altered safety plans, contacted former partners, sought emergency housing elsewhere, experienced acute fear or made housing decisions they otherwise would not have made. Trauma-informed domestic-violence work is supposed to increase safe choices, not unnecessarily collapse them. A domestic-violence shelter cannot evaluate this solely as a security communication about Kevin Glowicki. It must be evaluated as an intervention imposed upon an entire population of domestic-violence survivors.

That is what makes accuracy so important. If I actually made a credible threat, protect the residents and prosecute me based on the evidence. If I did not, then somebody may have introduced an extraordinary perceived threat into the lives of already-traumatized survivors while simultaneously placing me at risk of being encountered as a prospective terrorist. There is no version of that possibility that should be treated casually.

NOTICE TO SOJOURNER FOR CRIMINAL DEFAMATION:

I Have Seen This Strategy Before

This is not my first experience with somebody responding to Never Stop Media's reporting by attacking me personally. In 2021, CJTV's Carl Haliburton sought a harassment restraining order against me containing allegations of stalking, encouraging people to “aim for the head,” encouraging people to attack him and making violent threats. I denied those allegations, hired counsel and fought the case. In my later reporting on those proceedings, I documented how the restraining-order case was ultimately dismissed after the evidence presented failed to substantiate the allegations.

I spent months under the weight of those accusations while people who knew nothing about the evidence assumed that a court filing itself meant the allegations had to be true. That experience taught me something important about the difference between accusation and evidence. Anybody can type words onto a complaint, put allegations into an internal report or repeat a story. The question is what survives when somebody starts demanding the original evidence.

Years later, Never Stop Media investigated Nashville North in Milwaukee. During the licensing process, owner Jeff Marsh attacked my credibility and characterized me as a known “agitator” during the Kenosha unrest. I responded by demanding a retraction, and after the licensing hearing Marsh sent an email retracting that statement. At the time I wrote something that remains true today: people repeatedly try to attack me personally or resurrect old pieces of my life because they cannot attack the journalism itself. The journalism is documented with records, video, audio, public filings and archives because I know eventually somebody being investigated is going to say the investigation is false.

So Never Stop Media keeps receipts. Attacking Kevin Glowicki does not make the underlying investigation disappear. It expands it. This time the credibility attack, if the evidence confirms the reported BOLO and the escalation of the September 11 narrative, may be substantially more dangerous than anything I have dealt with before because the accusation is capable of reaching people carrying guns and badges.

What Does Sojourner Family Peace Center Have To Hide?

That brings us to the obvious question: What does Sojourner Family Peace Center have to hide? That question is not being presented as a predetermined factual conclusion that Sojourner is concealing some specific wrongdoing. It is the inference created by the sequence of conduct now requiring investigation. When an investigative journalist begins asking increasingly specific questions about an institution's services, policies, finances, surveillance systems, safety practices, disability accommodations and treatment of residents, and that journalist is subsequently removed while an extraordinary September 11 threat allegation appears in the institutional record, the institution should expect people to ask whether the response to scrutiny itself became part of the story.

A competent journalist does not stop investigating because the institution being investigated has now labeled him dangerous. He investigates harder, and that is exactly what Never Stop Media is doing. Sojourner now has an evidence problem because it has been placed on notice to preserve the original threat report, every version of the September 11 case note, native metadata, exact creation and modification timestamps, audit histories, access histories, communications involving my removal, the reported BOLO, every version of the BOLO, the photograph distributed with it, recipient lists, emails, texts, internal messaging, security communications, shift briefings, access-control instructions, law-enforcement communications and records identifying exactly what Sojourner believed the threat was at each point in time.

Those records should also reveal how the language evolved. If one resident supposedly made one statement and later communications referred to “multiple residents,” that progression needs to be documented. If the original report contained one form of language and the BOLO contained something substantially more severe, that progression needs to be documented. Who said what, when, to whom, and based on what evidence? That is the investigation now.

Wisconsin law also recognizes that false defamatory communications can create civil liability, including where defamatory meaning arises through implication, and Wisconsin continues to maintain a criminal-defamation statute under Wis. Stat. § 942.01. Whether any particular person ultimately violated that statute is a decision for prosecutors and courts, not Never Stop Media. I have nevertheless made it clear that I intend to pursue every lawful civil, criminal-referral, administrative and regulatory avenue supported by the evidence. Calling somebody a prospective bomber or terrorist is not a minor public-relations disagreement. If evidence establishes that somebody knowingly manufactured, materially escalated or recklessly distributed such an accusation without an adequate factual basis, I intend to find out who did it, who approved it, how far it traveled, what damage it caused and why.

Being a journalist, public-facing figure or abrasive critic does not eliminate my right to challenge a false factual accusation. Being criticized does not give somebody the right to invent facts. Being investigated does not transform a journalist into a criminal. Being uncomfortable with scrutiny does not make the scrutiny harassment, and putting an accusation inside an institutional system does not transform that accusation into truth. Evidence does that.

Sojourner Family Peace Center now has every opportunity to produce that evidence. If I threatened the building, establish it. If I threatened to bomb the building, establish it. If I told somebody at a gas station I intended to “do something to the building on 9/11,” establish that encounter. If multiple residents independently reported threats, preserve every original report. If a BOLO was justified, produce the evidence used to justify it. If residents genuinely needed to remove their children because I represented a credible danger, produce the threat assessment and emergency planning that justified frightening those residents. Put me under oath, put the accuser under oath, pull the surveillance, pull the metadata, identify the gas station, obtain the video if it exists and establish the chronology. Then let the evidence decide who is lying.

I have said throughout this investigation that I do not want Sojourner Family Peace Center destroyed. Milwaukee needs domestic-violence services, Wisconsin needs domestic-violence services, survivors need emergency shelter, children need safe places to sleep and employees who entered this work because they genuinely care about survivors deserve an institution capable of supporting the work they came there to perform. The mission is the reason to investigate, not the reason not to. But nobody gets to invoke that mission as immunity from scrutiny, weaponize the language of survivor safety against a journalist because the investigation became uncomfortable, frighten domestic-violence survivors with an extraordinary threat allegation and then expect nobody to examine whether the threat was actually substantiated, or attach September 11 to my name and photograph and act surprised when I demand every record explaining how that happened.

I entered Sojourner needing help, and I am leaving this experience asking questions I never expected to have to ask about one of Milwaukee's most prominent domestic-violence institutions. From this point forward, my biography should recede and the evidence should take over because Never Stop Media was already investigating Sojourner Family Peace Center before this allegation appeared, and now we are investigating the allegation too. If somebody thought attaching the words September 11, bomb threat, terrorist, or dangerous to my name would frighten me into abandoning this investigation, they fundamentally misunderstood both the journalist they were dealing with and the evidence trail they may have just created. They did not end the investigation. They became part of it.

UPDATE: THE RECORDS ARE NOW SPEAKING — AND SOJOURNER FAMILY PEACE CENTER HAS SOME EXPLAINING TO DO

The evidence surrounding my removal from Sojourner Family Peace Center has changed substantially, and I am done pretending that what is happening here deserves to be discussed in sanitized institutional language. I have now obtained information concerning Sojourner's own internal records showing that an allegation connecting me to some supposed plan involving its building and September 11 was entered into its electronic system after I had already been removed from the shelter. That matters. It matters enormously. Because Sojourner removed me first, and then an extraordinarily serious allegation carrying the unmistakable implications of September 11 appeared in its electronic record afterward.

I want to make something equally clear before anyone attempts to distort what I am saying: I categorically deny ever threatening Sojourner Family Peace Center, its building, its employees, its residents, its children or anyone associated with that organization. I never threatened to bomb that building. I never threatened to attack that building. I never told anyone that I was going to “do something” to that building on September 11. I never warned residents to remove themselves or their children from that building. I never made a terrorist threat. Period.

These are not trivial allegations. This is not somebody falsely accusing me of being rude. This is not a disagreement over shelter policy. Someone has attached my name to an allegation involving September 11 and a building occupied by domestic-violence survivors and children. Information I have obtained concerning what happened after my removal indicates that the allegation escalated far beyond an ordinary exclusion from a shelter, including a building-wide BOLO containing my identifying information and photograph. The Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office has now independently confirmed to me that a building-wide BOLO concerning me was in fact distributed. I will not tolerate an institution circulating allegations capable of causing police officers, security personnel, domestic-violence survivors and the public to perceive me as someone preparing to commit mass violence and then expect me to politely soften the questions I ask about how those allegations were created.

Sojourner does not get the benefit of an explanation that has not been produced. It gets the opportunity to produce the evidence.

If Sojourner possessed this allegation before removing me, then produce the contemporaneous record showing it. Produce the timestamp. Produce the original report. Produce the communication through which management received it. Produce the person who supposedly heard me say it. Produce the exact words attributed to me. Produce the gas station where this conversation supposedly occurred. Produce the date and time. Produce the surveillance footage if it exists. Produce the emails, texts, case notes, security communications and management communications showing exactly when the allegation entered the institution and exactly what the people who removed me knew when they made that decision.

Do not give me a narrative. Give me the evidence.

Because the apparent internal record I have now reviewed is titled “Threat to Building Plan on 9/11/2026.” It identifies me as the client, identifies the program as Shelter, bears a September 2 creation date and identifies Renee Louve as the creator. The actual allegation recorded inside that note states: “A resident reported that he saw this individual at a gas station and informed the current resident that he was planning to do something to the building on 9/11.”

Read that carefully, because words matter.

The note says “A resident.” Singular. It does not document multiple residents independently reporting that I threatened Sojourner. It does not say I threatened to bomb the building. It does not say I threatened to blow up the building. It does not say I threatened a mass shooting. It does not say I threatened terrorism. It does not say I threatened to kill women or children. It says that a resident reported an alleged gas-station encounter in which I supposedly said I was “planning to do something to the building on 9/11.”

I deny that statement completely.

And unlike an accusation floating around through rumor, this one contains an alleged event that investigators can test. There is supposedly a resident. There is supposedly a gas station. There was supposedly a conversation. There was supposedly a date and time when that conversation occurred. Find it.

Identify the resident. Identify the gas station. Obtain the surveillance video. Establish the date and time. Determine whether I was there. Determine whether that resident was there. Obtain the resident's original statement rather than somebody else's summary of it. Determine who first received the allegation. Determine what that person was actually told. Determine whether the original allegation changed as it moved through Sojourner. Determine whether “planning to do something to the building on 9/11” somehow became an allegation that residents should fear I was going to blow up the building. Determine who made that transformation, if it occurred, and why.

I am literally asking law enforcement to investigate the allegation against me. That is how certain I am that I never made it.

But there is another part of this story that I am no longer willing to allow Sojourner or anyone associated with it to casually rewrite: I did not wander into Sojourner Family Peace Center pretending to be a domestic-violence victim as some pretext for an investigation. I arrived there after a serious physical attack, and there is an actual judicial and law-enforcement record behind it.

On July 11, 2026, I reported being physically attacked by my then-roommate, Corey Wysinger. My sworn affidavit describes an hours-long escalation during which I repeatedly attempted to disengage, repeatedly asked for physical space, attempted to move away from the confrontation and ultimately began preparing to leave the residence. I described being followed through the residence, having my movement obstructed, being subjected to unwanted physical contact and ultimately being tackled while pressure was applied to my neck and I struggled to breathe. I called 911. I sought medical treatment. I photographed my injuries. I preserved contemporaneous electronic communications and other evidence.

The police response exists. The court records exist. The restraining-order proceedings exist. And most importantly, the final judicial order exists.

On July 22, 2026, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court entered a four-year injunction protecting me from Corey Wysinger. The injunction remains effective until July 22, 2030. The court expressly found reasonable grounds to find that Wysinger “engaged in harassment with intent to harass or intimidate the petitioner.” The court ordered him to cease or avoid harassing me, avoid my residence or premises I temporarily occupy, avoid contact that harasses or intimidates me and avoid contacting me except under the conditions provided in the order.

That is not Kevin Glowicki asking the public to simply believe Kevin Glowicki.

That is a court order.

There is also a continuing police record. On July 19, while the temporary restraining order was already in effect, I reported another encounter involving Wysinger to the Milwaukee Police Department. My contemporaneous supplemental statement identifies the location, approximately when it occurred, what I observed and the fact that I immediately entered a public location and contacted police rather than approaching Wysinger or responding to him.

So when an institution serving domestic-violence victims treats my status as a victim as though it is another questionable story coming out of my mouth, I take that personally, and I take it seriously. I am not asking Sojourner to diagnose whether I “look” like a victim. I am not asking its employees to decide whether my personality fits whatever image of victimhood makes them comfortable. I am not asking them to decide whether an investigative journalist with a complicated background is allowed to have been strangled. The evidence does not cease to exist because I am an inconvenient victim.

And there is a particularly disturbing contradiction here. Sojourner Family Peace Center exists to serve people who report domestic violence. Yet while I was living inside that institution as a domestic-violence survivor, I began documenting problems involving access to services, institutional policies, disability accommodation, surveillance, grievance procedures, male-survivor access and the larger question of whether residents were actually being given meaningful information about the resources supposedly available to them. Sojourner's own apparent August 31 case-management documentation records that I was asking for policies concerning rules and expectations, services, discharge, extensions, grievances and the resident handbook before I was removed. It records that I told staff I believed services might exist for which I qualified but about which I had never been informed. It records my concern about information I had received concerning Rapid Exit assistance as a male survivor. It records that I was asking questions about surveillance audio.

Then I was removed.

And after I was removed, an allegation involving September 11 appeared in the electronic record.

Then came a building-wide BOLO.

And somewhere in that escalation, information concerning me appears to have transformed from an accusation that I supposedly said I was going to “do something to the building on 9/11” into something serious enough that women and children were reportedly being warned about my supposed intentions toward the facility.

That is not a sequence I am going to politely ignore.

I also want the public to understand why falsely attaching this kind of allegation to me is particularly dangerous. During the July 11 domestic-violence incident, materials I have provided to investigators describe another extraordinary accusation communicated to emergency dispatch: that I possessed a concealed firearm while experiencing a mental episode. The subsequent investigative materials state that responding officers found no firearm on me and that Wysinger was arrested following the incident. I have already documented why falsely portraying somebody as armed and mentally unstable before police arrive can radically alter the tactical environment confronting both that person and responding officers.

Now, less than two months later, while I am investigating the domestic-violence shelter in which I sought protection, my name is associated with another allegation capable of making armed people believe I represent an extraordinary threat. This time the allegation invokes September 11 and a building containing women and children.

That is why I will not minimize this.

That is why I will not write around it.

And that is why I am demanding the evidence.

Sojourner Family Peace Center can either substantiate what was said about me or it can explain how my name became attached to one of the most inflammatory accusations imaginable against a person living in the United States: an alleged future threat involving September 11, a domestic-violence shelter, women and children.

I will not allow my history to be weaponized to make that accusation easier to believe. I will not allow psychiatric history, prior police contacts, a booking photograph or the fact that I am an aggressive investigative journalist to substitute for evidence that I threatened anybody. And I will not allow an institution to erase the documented reality that I entered its building as a domestic-violence victim while simultaneously portraying me as a threat when its own records and conduct became the subject of my investigation.

The court record concerning my domestic-violence case is not ambiguous about whether judicial protection was ultimately entered. A four-year injunction exists. It expires July 22, 2030. My sworn affidavit exists. The police documentation exists. My subsequent report of alleged prohibited contact exists. Those records can be examined by anyone with lawful access to them.

So if somebody at Sojourner wants to call me a liar about being a domestic-violence victim, put your evidence next to mine.

If somebody wants to say I threatened that building, put your evidence next to my denial.

If somebody wants to associate me with a September 11 attack against women and children, identify the witness, identify the gas station, identify the date, identify the time, produce the original statement and produce the evidence.

Because I am not running from an investigation into this allegation.

I am demanding one.