What’s Going to Happen to the Scottsdale School Board Official and the Creepy Dossier About Parents he Disagreed With? ⋆ Politicrossing
Connect with us

Education

What’s Going to Happen to the Scottsdale School Board Official and the Creepy Dossier About Parents he Disagreed With?

Published

on

It recently came out that the former president of the Scottsdale Unified School District board appears to have compiled a creepy dossier full of personal information about parents who objected to CRT, COVID-19 restrictions and other parts of the progressive agenda being shoved down their kids’ throats without their approval. The Google Drive included over 160 pages about at least 50 parents containing background checks, a divorce paper, mortgage documents, hidden camera footage, Social Security numbers and screenshots of their social media posts. There were even some mental health status notes about a parent. There were offensive memes such as one comparing one of the mothers to a racist lynching of a black person. 

 

Jann-Michael Greenburg, 28, who doesn’t have any children, reportedly lives with his parents and who sources say only held the position as a stepping stone for higher office, denies compiling the dossier, which is in the name of his father. However, the dossier, which parents accidentally got access to, showed that he had access to it and the information all revolved around interactions he had with the parents. 

 

Some of the folders in the dossier include “SUSD Wackos,” “Press Conference Psychos” and “Anti-Mask Lunatics.” The last one is interesting considering Greenburg was spotted walking around in a bar without a mask. His father is heard on bodycam footage saying that he has a private investigator following parents around and collecting their license plate numbers. Some of the screenshots of parents’ social media were obviously taken to document their support for former President Donald Trump and the fact they were Christians. 

 

The Scottsdale Police Department conducted an investigation but said there was no crime committed. However, they merely cited the fact the information collected was in the public domain. They never addressed other aspects which could be considered stalking or illegal, such as Greenburg’s father showing up and secretly recording parents while disguising his license plate, collecting license plate numbers, collecting Social Security numbers and the cruel memes (hate crimes?) and photos of one parent’s young children.

 

Greenburg’s father has a history of this type of behavior. He ran a parody website and Twitter account attacking the board’s president, Barbara Perleberg, in 2018. Apparently his goal was to destroy her reputation to make room for his son to become school board president. Perleberg said the spoof accounts “went on to attribute comments to me debasing AIDS and the Holocaust.”

 

The dossier was originally discovered when Greenburg attacked a Scottsdale parent, accusing her of anti-Semitism. He sent a screenshot of an online conversation to her, and she noticed a Google Drive address in the photo. Despite all the evidence, Greenburg denied having anything to do with the dossier to YourValley.net and appeared to threaten legal action if the paper indicated so.

 

The Scottsdale school district won’t take any action, sending a letter to parents saying it was out of their jurisdiction. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office is currently investigating accusations that Greenburg violated Open Meeting laws, in order to keep parents out of meetings. 

 

The other members of the school board removed Greenburg as president, but he is still on the board. There is a recall effort in place to remove him in addition to other school board members who had prior knowledge of the dossier but didn’t do anything about it. 

 

When this was brought to the attention of a prominent columnist who writes about parents and education, he declined to write about it saying this kind of thing happens constantly, it’s no longer even news. Unfortunately, because the left has hyped up attacks on parents concerned about what their children are learning lately, it’s proving difficult to get any justice here. 

 

While the harassed parents may receive no justice in a criminal court of law, perhaps they will with lawsuits and restraining orders. I obtained a restraining order against a stalker for far less worse behavior. Leading Trump-supported Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake has held rallies supporting the parents, calling for Greenburg’s resignation. 

 

Parents say they were attacked by Greenburg merely because they became advocates for increased transparency in the school district. They were essentially attacked for free speech. Meanwhile, Greenburg continues on his rise in public office, filing paperwork to run for the Maricopa County Community College District board. He apparently has no shame and will not stop if something isn’t done about it. 

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.


Rachel Alexander is a conservative political writer and pundit. She is the editor of Intellectual Conservative and a recovering attorney. She was ranked by Right Wing News as one of the 50 Best Conservative Columnists from 2011-2019.



  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
 
 
 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



Business

Justice, not ‘Social’ Justice, Improves Society

If we ignore existing laws simply in favor of what we want, society will soon break down

Published

on

Thomas Jefferson wrote that, “The most sacred of the duties of government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” The hallowed duty to fulfill the promise of justice for all remains, or ideally should remain, as the guiding ideal for the people we elect to government.

A friend of mine recently commented that the ‘social’ justice movement in America is alive and well, and that great things have been happening. However, when you put any word in front of the word ‘justice,’ the true meaning of justice is altered. Social justice is some group’s attempt at righting what they consider to be wrong.

I asked my friend for an example of social justice and was told that power lines being installed near poor neighborhoods instead of wealthier neighborhoods was a prime example. I then explained that that was not an issue related to ‘social’ justice but to justice itself.

Express Lanes for Redress

This is not 1860, or 1960. Today, many avenues exist for illuminating any issue of merit. Locally, there are zoning boards in every municipality, city councils usually with members on the left and the right, town hall meetings, public forums, newspapers, local television stations – a variety of entities that can be brought to bear to examine an issue and to forge some type of equitable redress if needed.

To be sure, no form of political government is anywhere near perfect or even equitable, much of the time. Democracy is difficult, but all other forms of government are worse.

In a democracy, or representative republic, such as we have in the U.S., you can’t go off half-cocked and do exactly what you want because you think that a particular law is bad. You have to work to change the law, to change policies, to address inequities within the framework of democracy, and within the bound of the justice system.

A Sanctuary for Whom?

Consider the phenomenon of sanctuary cities. For a sanctuary city to exist, one has to have a mayor, an alderman, city council members,  and other committee members, including those whose were elected as well as as appointed, to believe that what they’re espousing is right, while ignoring what has been passed into law. This ruling class thus usurps that which a majority of citizens rely upon each day.

A sanctuary city, by definition, is a city that is breaking the law. The Left will rationalize that ‘social’ justice requires breaking the law and that not all laws are good laws. True: not all laws are good laws. Laws, nevertheless, were passed as a result of a process in place for tens if not hundreds of years.

If laws routinely discriminate against one segment of the population versus another, then by all means work to change the law. When you insert catchphrases into the mix, such as ‘social’ justice, what that actually means is that you have another viewpoint of an issue. Further, you deem that your view and your actions are more meritorious than whatever came before them.

Vigilantism isn’t Pretty

Years ago, by exhibiting such behavior, you would be called a vigilante. Vigilantes are a self-appointed group who engage in policy enforcement without having legal authority, usually because they deem the legal agencies to be inadequate.

We dwell in a society where the media is distinctly liberal, and even leftist – as we have witnessed with big tech, the big TV networks, nearly all newspapers, and, unfortunately, a variety of government agencies. Thus, those advocating for ‘social’ justice have the wind at their backs. Yet, they violate the rights, and votes, of half the population and perhaps much more.

Welcome to My Two Cents

Any one of us could offer a long list of social issues that we’d like to change. If we decide, willy-nilly, to start ignoring existing laws in favor of what we want, how long will it take before society breaks down completely? Taking the law into your own hands is the essence of what it means to be a vigilante. Vigilante-dominated societies are not healthy. Many of their residents live in constant fear.

Taking the law into your own hands is an ill-advised shortcut to seeking what you want without working through the system, however imperfect the system might be. This country, any country, does not need more vigilantism.

– – – – –

 

Continue Reading

Education

Texas School District Says Enough is Enough

Published

on

school
Photo by MChe Lee on Unsplash

BREAKING: The Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District in North Texas voted last night to:

1) Ban the teaching of critical race theory. 

2) Wait until students are in the fifth grade to teach them sexual orientation and gender identity. 

3) Ban boys from playing in girls’ sports.

4) Encourage the use of pronouns that align with student’s biological gender and require them to use restrooms and locker rooms that align with their biological gender.

5) Require that library materials be posted online and readily available for review by parents.

6) Not teach The New York Times “1619 Project”.

7) Implement a strict process for reviewing library books, so as to allow To Kill A Mockingbird and disallow Daddy, Papa, and Me and others.

It seems nearly incomprehensible that a school district would have to vote on measures like these. In fact, to many thoughtful Americans, it seems utterly Orwellian. How can truths about gender and the proper use of pronouns suddenly seem controversial rather than commonsensical?

Why does it seem radical to return power to parents and reaffirm biological reality? Or to keep boys from dominating girls in sports? Or to let students read revisionist history and propaganda about their nation on their own time? Why teach something that cannot withstand even the lightest objective criticism? 

Perhaps the school district’s 4-3 vote is a sign that there’s hope, that the pendulum has reached its arc and is beginning to move back toward truth and reality. Maybe the radicals are on the run.

No matter what, kudos to North Texas educators for pushing back against the absurdity and reaffirming responsible education.

Continue Reading

 

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Sites We Like

Our Newsletter

Become a PolitiCrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Trending