My 224 613 Project involves hundreds of thousands of people. I do not speak for them but have tried to get them involved with advocating certain ideas. Mainly about creating a dialog among many different professionals -- not just law librarians and lawyers-- about the practical needs of information for survivors/victims of crimes connected to libraries and the Internet. I vote for whomever I feel would follow my personal beliefs about politics. I am a life long Democrat. If a life long Republican wants to get involved with the 224 613 Project-- and many are-- that's fine with me. Many Republicans have helped me over the almost 26 years I have been doing this work. I have no idea what Donald Trump is going to do about much of anything. We will see what he does in January 2017. He seems to also dialog with a lot of people before making serious decisions which is a good thing. But my vote is MY vote and not the vote of others in the 224 613 Project. I am for a woman's right to chose, against actions that will hurt the environment and many other tenets of the Democrats.

Part of this Project also is fighting against some very dirty tricks played on me by the two-party Establishment. I am very interested in just what Donald Trump has to say about "draining the swamp" and what he actually does in that regard.

Also my Project involves whom I have worked for and when and where and the kind of inter-actions I had with these people while fighting for the practical needs of information for survivors/victims of crimes. It is a very complicated story but quite well documented as I was trained to do while a student and then Student Director for Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners at the University of Minnesota Law School. Some of the law professors there liked what I was doing; the majority did not. Arming people with access to very practical information does threaten lawyers' control of the dialog as you would have more people asking intelligent and well-informed questions in the legal process and not being so easily manipulated.

There seems to be more and more people though interested in mitigating the ability of lawyers to control the conversation. Better informed jury members for instance BEFORE they even go into the court room is one aspect of this. I am not arguing for chaos in the courtroom that would harm the pursuit of justice in the jurors trying to get at the truth in a certain case or at least as that is humanly possibly given the limitations of any particular situation.