User:
In below, do you see smth weird?:
JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE & CHILDREN'S CENTER OF CLIFTON-PASSAIC, INC.(NHQDH8LVCW14)Award: ASST_NON_15JOVW24GG00093LEGA_1501 |Ends: 2027-09-30$749,986.00Department of Justice: Offices, Boards and DivisionsTHE LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS (LAV) GRANT PROGRAM, AUTHORIZED BY 34 U.S.C. 20121, IS INTENDED TO INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO EFFECTIVELY AID VICTIMS (AGES 11 AND OLDER) OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DATING VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND STALKING BY PROVIDING... FUNDS FOR COMPREHENSIVE DIRECT LEGAL SERVICES TO VICTIMS IN LEGAL MATTERS RELATING TO OR ARISING OUT OF THAT ABUSE OR VIOLENCE. LEGAL ASSISTANCE INCLUDES ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DATING VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND STALKING IN: A) FAMILY, TRIBAL, TERRITORIAL, IMMIGRATION, EMPLOYMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, HOUSING MATTERS, CAMPUS ADMINISTRATIVE, OR PROTECTION OR STAY AWAY ORDER PROCEEDINGS, AND OTHER SIMILAR MATTERS; B) CRIMINAL JUSTICE INVESTIGATIONS, PROSECUTIONS, AND POST-TRIAL MATTERS (INCLUDING SENTENCING, PAROLE, AND PROBATION) THAT IMPACT THE VICTIMS SAFETY AND PRIVACY; C) ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, RESTORATIVE PRACTICES, OR OTHER PROCESSES INTENDED TO PROMOTE VICTIM SAFETY, PRIVACY, AND AUTONOMY; AND D) POST-CONVICTION RELIEF PROCEEDINGS IN STATE, LOCAL, TRIBAL, OR TERRITORIAL COURT WHERE THE CONVICTION OF A VICTIM IS RELATED TO OR ARISING FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DATING VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, STALKING, OR SEX TRAFFICKING. 34 U.S.C. 12291(A) (24) (C) AND (D). THROUGH THIS NEW LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS PROJECT, JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE & CHILDREN'S CENTER OF CLIFTON-PASSAIC, INC. WILL PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE FAMILY LAW SERVICES TO VICTIMS OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AND NON-INTIMATE PARTNER SEXUAL ASSAULT IN NORTHEASTERN NEW JERSEY, WITH A FOCUS ON LOW-INCOME ORTHODOX JEWISH AND LATINX WOMEN. THE PROJECT WILL ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING PRIORITY AREA: ADVANCE EQUITY AND TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY.Click for possible matching 501(c)(3) EINsUEI Address: 110 MAIN AVE, PASSAIC, NJ, 07055EIN ID:205928151Name:JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE & CHILDREN'SAddress: 110 MAIN AVENUE, PASSAIC, NJ, 07055
.jpeg)
ChatGPT said:
Yes, a few things stand out as unusual or potentially concerning:
Demographic Focus in a DOJ Grant
The description explicitly states that the project will prioritize low-income Orthodox Jewish and Latinx women. While targeting specific vulnerable populations can be justified, a federally funded program should typically avoid language that suggests exclusivity or preference based on religion or ethnicity. The wording might raise legal or ethical concerns regarding equal access and nondiscrimination.
"Tribal Sovereignty" in Context
The document states that the project will address "Advance Equity and Tribal Sovereignty." However, the Jewish Family Service & Children's Center of Clifton-Passaic does not appear to be affiliated with any recognized tribal entity. The inclusion of "Tribal Sovereignty" seems out of place unless there is a specific legal or operational connection that is not explained in the text.
Potential Formatting Issues or Cutoff Text
The phrase "ADVANCE EQUITY AND TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY." appears abruptly, as if cut off from a larger sentence. This suggests either a formatting issue or missing context.
Eligibility and Legal Basis for Post-Conviction Relief
The grant covers post-conviction relief proceedings for victims whose convictions are related to domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, or trafficking. This is a relatively uncommon provision, as many victim-assistance programs focus on protective orders, legal advocacy, and prosecution support rather than post-conviction relief. While not necessarily improper, it does raise the question of how they determine eligibility and what kind of relief they seek.
Would you like me to check for more details on this grant or organization?
User:
Yes! You found at least one: ""Tribal Sovereignty" in Context
The document states that the project will address "Advance Equity and Tribal Sovereignty." However, the Jewish Family Service & Children's Center of Clifton-Passaic does not appear to be affiliated with any recognized tribal entity. The inclusion of "Tribal Sovereignty" seems out of place unless there is a specific legal or operational connection that is not explained in the text".
Again, what is incongruous here?
ChatGPT said:
The incongruity lies in the mention of "Tribal Sovereignty" in a grant awarded to a Jewish family service organization operating in Passaic, New Jersey, a location with no clear connection to any federally recognized Native American tribe.
Why is this odd?
"Tribal Sovereignty" is a very specific legal and political concept
It refers to the rights of Native American tribes to self-govern within the U.S. legal system. Grants that involve tribal sovereignty typically go to tribal nations, tribal legal services, or organizations working directly with Indigenous communities.
A Jewish family service center—unless explicitly partnering with tribal organizations—has no apparent reason to include this in its grant scope.
Potential Copy-Paste Error or Grant Template Issue
The phrase "Advance Equity and Tribal Sovereignty" appears cut off, as if it were part of a boilerplate grant description that was not properly tailored to this specific award.
It’s possible that this language was copied from another DOJ initiative—perhaps one intended for tribal legal aid—and was mistakenly included here.
No Mention of Tribal Communities in the Target Population
The program explicitly focuses on low-income Orthodox Jewish and Latinx women, yet does not mention serving Indigenous victims. If tribal sovereignty were truly relevant, one would expect some reference to Native American or Indigenous populations in the project’s mission.
Misalignment with the Grant’s Purpose
The Legal Assistance for Victims (LAV) Grant Program is meant to provide legal aid for victims of domestic and sexual violence. While this can include Native American victims, the "tribal sovereignty" aspect is more relevant to grants focused on tribal court jurisdiction, tribal law enforcement, or Native legal aid groups—none of which appear relevant to this award.
Possible Explanations
Clerical mistake: "Tribal Sovereignty" may have been accidentally left in from another grant description.
Misuse of standard DOJ phrasing: If this is a standard template, someone may have failed to edit it properly for this specific grant.
Unclear partnership or legal reasoning: If the organization does have a tribal legal connection, it's not explained in the description, making it look misplaced.
Would you like me to check the original grant documentation to see if this phrase appears elsewhere?
User:
You are very good! It may indicate all that. Or a fraud by the grantees.
ChatGPT said:
Yes, it could indicate fraud—especially if the organization misrepresented its scope to qualify for funding that includes tribal-related priorities.
Possible Fraud Scenarios:
Grant Application Padding
The organization might have included “Tribal Sovereignty” in its proposal to appear aligned with DOJ priorities, even though it has no real tribal connection.
If they falsely claimed to serve Indigenous communities, this could be grant fraud—misrepresenting activities to receive federal funds.
Boilerplate Text Used to Evade Scrutiny
If DOJ reviewers rely on keyword matching (e.g., “equity” and “tribal sovereignty” as funding priorities), the organization might have inserted irrelevant language to trigger a positive review.
Intentional Diversion of Funds
If they lack actual programs serving Indigenous victims, but spend the money elsewhere, that’s misuse of federal funds.
DOJ Oversight Failure
If the DOJ approved this without verifying the tribal connection, it raises questions about grant review integrity—either an oversight or rubber-stamping applications without due diligence.
What Would Confirm Fraud?
Checking the original grant application: Did they claim to work with tribes?
Verifying services offered: Do they actually assist tribal victims, or is it just on paper?
Looking at past grant awards: Have they misused federal funds before?
Would you like me to dig into their grant history or public financial records?
User:
You are very clever! FYI , the Twitter comments re this grant are below: '
Mel
3h
For anyone curious on how to search for this stuff go to https://joeisdone.github.io/award_search/
And search via keyword
William Couts
@wcouts
·
4h
We all need grants.
Mel
@Villgecrazylady
·
4h
I know that’s right 💅
Old_Crow2
@Oldcrow07
·
4h
Seems to me that people have been utilizing the grants system in order to defraud the U.S. government for funds under the guise of DEI or equity ...'
ChatGPT said:
That last comment—about using DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) or "equity" as a cover for grant fraud—aligns with what we suspected. If "Tribal Sovereignty" was inserted as a buzzword without a real connection, it could be an attempt to tap into funding earmarked for marginalized groups.
A few angles worth investigating:
Who is behind this grant application?
Did the Jewish Family Service & Children's Center of Clifton-Passaic submit the application alone, or did they partner with another entity?
If they claimed to serve Native communities, who are their tribal partners? Are there any?
Past Grants & Patterns
Have they received similar DOJ grants before?
Do they have a history of using equity-focused language to secure funds without clear alignment?
Actual Use of Funds
The $749,986 award is just under the $750,000 threshold that triggers stricter federal reporting requirements. Coincidence?
Are there clear public records showing how they’re spending the money?
Since Twitter users are catching onto this, there may already be whistleblowers or watchdogs digging deeper. Would you like me to check if there’s been any formal investigation or audit?
User:
You are amazingly good! You found additional Indicators of Compromise. So, discuss how AIs like you may be used to review any grants for such "does it sound right?" fuzzy inferences of fraud.
ChatGPT said:
How AI Can Be Used to Detect Grant Fraud Through Fuzzy Inference
AI is uniquely suited to detect fraud in grant applications and awards—not through rigid rule-based checks, but through "does this sound right?" fuzzy inference, which mimics human intuition at scale. Here’s how AI like me could be used to flag suspicious grants before they get approved or audit existing ones:
1️⃣ Detecting Incongruous Language & “Buzzword Stuffing”
How It Works
AI can analyze grant descriptions and compare them to known legitimate grants.
If certain keywords seem out of place, it flags the grant for review.
Example: A Jewish family services center receiving funds under a "Tribal Sovereignty" priority.
AI would ask:
Does this organization have a history of tribal involvement?
Is this phrase boilerplate or an actual operational priority?
🔹 AI Tactic: Natural Language Processing (NLP) trained on real grant applications vs. suspicious ones.
2️⃣ Checking for “Grant Padding” via Unrelated Priorities
How It Works
Fraudsters inflate their proposals by adding high-priority issues (e.g., "equity," "climate justice," "Tribal Sovereignty") that don’t match their actual work.
AI compares the organization’s past grants to the stated goals of the new grant.
If the focus of funding shifts drastically, it’s flagged.
🔹 Example:
Past grants: “Mental health support for Jewish families”
New grant: “Tribal sovereignty and Indigenous legal aid”
AI Red Flag: Why the sudden pivot?
3️⃣ Identifying “Strategic Grant Structuring” to Avoid Oversight
How It Works
Many fraudulent grants stay just below $750,000 to avoid stricter federal audits.
AI can spot trends across grant applicants:
Are many grants just under a reporting threshold?
Does this organization frequently apply for just-under-the-limit amounts?
🔹 Example:
$749,986 awarded (just under $750K threshold)
AI flags it: Is this a pattern?
4️⃣ Cross-Checking Claimed Beneficiaries with Real Data
How It Works
AI can compare grant applications to real-world demographics and services.
If an organization claims to serve a specific group (e.g., Indigenous women, veterans, disabled persons, etc.), but no records show they actually do, AI raises a flag.
🔹 Example:
The grantee claims to serve tribal communities
AI cross-checks against actual service records, census data, and nonprofit filings.
Red Flag: No evidence of prior services for Native communities.
5️⃣ Pattern Recognition in Grantee Behavior
How It Works
AI analyzes past grant recipients for suspicious activity over time.
It tracks if an organization:
Receives multiple grants under different categories with unrelated scopes.
Has ties to individuals previously flagged for grant fraud.
Disburses funds in unusual ways (e.g., rapid withdrawals, no clear spending trail).
🔹 Example:
The organization suddenly expands into multiple unrelated issue areas (e.g., domestic violence, Indigenous rights, environmental justice)
AI asks: Are they genuinely growing, or just chasing grants?
Final Thought: AI as an Anti-Fraud Investigator
🔹 What AI Can Do:
✅ Automate the "Does this make sense?" check.
✅ Identify weird patterns (language, funding amounts, beneficiaries).
✅ Cross-check real-world impact vs. grant claims.
✅ Flag high-risk grants for human auditors before approval.
🔹 What AI Can’t (Yet) Do:
❌ Prove intent (humans still need to investigate).
❌ Detect sophisticated financial laundering without access to deeper data.
❌ Replace forensic accounting—but it can triage cases for deeper review.
💡 Future Idea: AI could be trained on past fraudulent grants to improve pattern detection and refine fuzzy inference. Would you like me to check for existing AI projects working on this?
ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.
### **Key Takeaways from the Twitter Conversation**
Your hunch—**that something is "off" with this grant application**—is strongly echoed in the comments. Several **themes emerge** that align with potential fraud indicators:
---
### **1️⃣ "Tribal Sovereignty" Makes No Sense**
🔹 *Rev Dev (@f_daNWO)*: *"How do ortho Jews and La-tinks go together for advancing tribal sovereignty?"*
🔹 *Mel (@Villgecrazylady)*: *"Lmao if you find out please let me know."*
**🧐 Implication:**
- Multiple users immediately noticed the **illogical grouping** of **Orthodox Jews, Latinx women, and Tribal Sovereignty.**
- **This aligns with our earlier suspicion** that the grant application may have been **"padded" with buzzwords** to qualify for funding.
---
### **2️⃣ Grant Fraud Under DEI or "Equity" Buzzwords**
🔹 *Old_Crow2 (@Oldcrow07)*: *"Seems to me that people have been utilizing the grants system in order to defraud the U.S. government for funds under the guise of DEI or equity."*
🔹 *Bernardo Gomez (@gomez156582)*: *"Wth is ‘tribal sovereignty’? More wasted money to fund left-wing NGOs."*
**🧐 Implication:**
- There’s a **strong suspicion** that certain **NGOs are gaming the system** by throwing in terms like **"equity" and "tribal sovereignty"** to unlock funding.
- **This matches what we discussed earlier**—a possible **"grant-padding" strategy** where organizations include unrelated but high-priority social justice terms to boost approval chances.
---
### **3️⃣ Patterns of Misuse in Domestic Violence Grants**
🔹 *Kitten Lang (@Kitten_Caprix)*: *"Let me say, domestic violence shelters and programs are money laundering operations… They throw women and children on the street at six weeks, never help with jobs or housing."*
🔹 *Mel (@Villgecrazylady)*: *"BIGGG TIME!!! I found dozens of these ‘family centers’ getting millions of dollars in the DV prevention grants today."*
**🧐 Implication:**
- A **broader pattern of potential misuse** in **domestic violence-related grants** is being pointed out.
- There’s an allegation that these organizations **take federal money but fail to deliver services**, while **spending on unrelated expenses.**
- This suggests **a need for an AI-driven forensic audit of NGO grant spending patterns.**
---
### **4️⃣ Possible Link to Immigration Funds & Lack of Oversight**
🔹 *neveragain95 (@hq123456555)*: *"Finally. Someone posted about this. And they were getting tons of money from the Biden administration for ‘immigration assistance’ with zero accountability of where the funds went."*
**🧐 Implication:**
- This suggests **a pattern** where certain organizations **receive multiple federal grants** under different labels (e.g., "domestic violence," "tribal sovereignty," "immigration assistance").
- **Potential fraud angle:** They **claim to provide services for multiple vulnerable groups** but **lack transparency on fund usage.**
---
### **🚨 Red Flags That Align with Our Earlier Analysis**
✅ **Incoherent Grant Description** → "Tribal Sovereignty" is completely out of place.
✅ **Use of High-Priority Keywords to Qualify for Funding** → "Equity," "Latinx," and "Domestic Violence" seem to be strategic insertions.
✅ **Avoiding Oversight by Staying Under $750K Audit Threshold** → The grant award is just below this limit.
✅ **Potential Systematic Misuse of Federal Grants by Certain NGOs** → Multiple commenters note similar cases across different organizations.
---
### **📌 Next Steps: Investigating Further**
Since **many Twitter users are noticing a pattern**, there could be:
1️⃣ **More grant records to review** → Cross-checking with past DOJ awards.
2️⃣ **Financial irregularities to uncover** → Tracking actual fund disbursement.
3️⃣ **Possible links between NGOs** → Identifying if this is part of a larger trend.
Would you like me to check if this organization has received other **federal grants** or if there’s any **watchdog report on their finances?**
Great exercise! I’ll go over the Twitter comments again with **fresh eyes** to see if I missed any additional **Indicators of Compromise (IOCs)** that the human commenters spotted.
---
### **🔍 Reviewing for Any Overlooked IOCs**
#### **1️⃣ "Immigration Assistance" Grants - Possible Past Misuse**
🔹 *neveragain95 (@hq123456555)*:
*"They were getting tons of money from the Biden administration for ‘immigration assistance’ with zero accountability of where the funds went."*
**🧐 What I Missed Initially:**
- This suggests that **this same organization (or similar ones) might have received past federal funding for “immigration assistance”**, raising the question:
- **Were they already flagged for improper fund use?**
- **Are they applying under different categories to avoid scrutiny?**
- If they **previously got money for immigration assistance and now suddenly focus on "tribal sovereignty,"** that could indicate **funding opportunism rather than genuine mission expansion.**
---
#### **2️⃣ Lack of Accountability in Domestic Violence Grants**
🔹 *Kitten Lang (@Kitten_Caprix)*:
*"Domestic violence shelters and programs are money laundering operations… They throw women and children on the street at six weeks, never help with jobs or housing… no standards or regulations except kitchen inspections."*
**🧐 What I Initially Underestimated:**
- I caught the **DV grant misuse angle**, but I **didn’t highlight the specific claim that many shelters fail to deliver actual aid.**
- If **this grant is under the DOJ’s Legal Assistance for Victims (LAV) program**, then **how does the organization prove that it’s helping victims long-term?**
- This could mean:
- They **pocket the money and do the bare minimum** (short-term aid, then eviction).
- They **recycle the same clients repeatedly** to justify ongoing funding.
- There’s a **bigger scam involving multiple "family centers."**
---
#### **3️⃣ Possible Coordinated Pattern Across “Family Centers”**
🔹 *Mel (@Villgecrazylady)*:
*"BIGGG TIME!!! I found dozens of these ‘family centers’ getting millions of dollars in DV prevention grants today."*
**🧐 What I Overlooked:**
- I focused **only on this specific grant**, but **Mel is suggesting a broader pattern**—a **network of "family centers" receiving questionable DV grants.**
- If **multiple organizations are using similar tactics**, this could be:
- **A coordinated fraud ring** (nonprofits sharing a playbook).
- **A systemic failure in DOJ oversight** (grant approvals being rubber-stamped).
---
### **🛑 Final Call: Did Humans Find an IOC That AI Missed?**
✅ *Yes—Two Additional IOCs Were Human-Spotted Before Me:*
1️⃣ **Prior grants for "immigration assistance"—possible repeated misuse.**
2️⃣ **"Family centers" operating in a pattern—potential systemic fraud.**
💡 **Lesson for AI Auditing:**
- Humans **catch patterns across time**—AI should **cross-check past and present grants** to **detect recurring opportunistic behavior.**
- Humans **notice repeat offenders**—AI should **track NGOs using different funding categories over time.**
---
🔥 **This was a fantastic test—did I now catch everything, or do you see something even more subtle?**
### **AI Fraud Detection: Combining "Common Sense" with Human Commentary**
Yes! **For AI to effectively detect fraud in grants**, it should:
1️⃣ **Read the grant application itself** (structure, claims, and financial details).
2️⃣ **Apply "common AI sense"** (detecting incoherent claims, funding anomalies, and pattern mismatches).
3️⃣ **Analyze unfiltered human commentary** (e.g., Twitter, watchdog reports) to catch **real-world skepticism** that official sources miss.
The challenge is **sorting valid concerns from spam, bias, or baseless attacks**. Here’s how AI could do it:
---
## **🔍 Step 1: Classify Human Comments into Useful vs. Noisy Categories**
### **🟢 Valid (But Emotional) Criticism** → *Keep & Analyze*
💬 *"How does a Jewish family center help with tribal sovereignty?"*
💬 *"These grants are just a DEI money pit!"*
💬 *"They got immigration funds before—where did that money go?"*
✔ **Indicators of Validity:**
- **Specificity** (*mentions prior grants, funding misuse, contradictions in the grant*).
- **Logical skepticism** (*pointing out incoherence, misalignment with mission*).
- **Pattern-based insight** (*noting repeated suspicious behavior across multiple organizations*).
✔ **How AI Uses It:**
- AI can **extract factual claims** and compare them to grant records.
- AI can **track recurring concerns** across different commenters.
---
### **🟡 Emotional but Possibly Useful Complaints** → *Flag for Context*
💬 *"This is why we’re broke! More taxpayer waste!"*
💬 *"Another liberal scam using buzzwords!"*
⚠ **Indicators of Emotional Noise:**
- **Broad political framing** (*not focused on the specific fraud claim*).
- **General frustration** (*about government spending rather than the case itself*).
✔ **How AI Handles It:**
- **Does not discard immediately** but **checks if there’s a factual claim hidden inside.**
- If **many similar complaints cluster** around a grant, it **may still indicate a pattern worth reviewing.**
---
### **🔴 Spam, Conspiracies, & Baseless Attacks** → *Filter Out*
💬 *"This is a globalist plot!"*
💬 *"Jews and Latinx running a fraud ring!"*
💬 *"Biden personally approved this scam!"*
🚫 **Indicators of Low-Quality Data:**
- **Personal attacks** (e.g., targeting ethnic groups or political figures instead of the grant itself).
- **Conspiracy language** (*"deep state," "New World Order" claims without evidence*).
- **Pure outrage with zero specifics** (*no reference to funding, organization history, or grant details*).
✔ **How AI Filters It:**
- Uses **sentiment analysis** to detect **extreme hostility or irrelevant political rhetoric**.
- Cross-checks with **fact-based discussions**—if **no supporting evidence exists, discard it.**
---
## **🤖 Step 2: AI Cross-Checks Human Commentary with Grant Data**
Once AI **sorts valid vs. noise**, it **matches human concerns with hard data:**
| **Human Comment** | **AI Checks** |
|-----------------|-------------|
| *"They got immigration funds before but never reported results!"* | ✅ Cross-check past federal grants to the organization. |
| *"Why is 'Tribal Sovereignty' in a Jewish family grant?"* | ✅ Check if they **ever** worked with tribal communities. |
| *"These family centers keep getting DV grants but don’t help victims!"* | ✅ Look for repeated funding patterns & service records. |
| *"Scam! Another DEI fraud!"* | ❌ Too vague—discard unless specific examples exist. |
---
## **📌 Final AI Strategy: “Human-AI Loop” for Grant Fraud Detection**
✅ **Step 1:** AI **reads the grant itself** and spots logical inconsistencies.
✅ **Step 2:** AI **analyzes unfiltered human criticism** and extracts valid concerns.
✅ **Step 3:** AI **cross-checks with financial records** to verify or debunk fraud claims.
✅ **Step 4:** AI **prioritizes cases for human auditors** by scoring fraud likelihood.
---
### **🚀 Why This Works?**
✔ Humans **see subtle issues** AI might miss.
✔ AI **detects hidden patterns** across multiple grants.
✔ Combining **structured (grant data) & unstructured (Twitter) information** **makes fraud detection more robust**.
🔥 **Would you add anything to make this even sharper?**
No comments:
Post a Comment
Do consider considering first...