Once again, the existence of a decades-long strategy to suffocate political opposition through social justice-oriented investing criteria, or “social credit scores” determined by Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria, was affirmed on a global platform, just months after State Representative Joel John (R-Buckeye) denied its existence. John helped kill legislation preventing ESG discrimination, HB2656, because he said such a problem didn’t exist.
“I’ve asked the sponsor to give me real-world examples of why this bill is needed, and I didn’t get that. I even got a call from my cousin, who doesn’t live in my district, telling me that this bill is needed and to pass it right now and I said ‘why is it a problem man? Help me understand,’” said John. “For those of us who happen to be in this chamber, but don’t live, eat, and breathe politics 24/7, when I’m not in this chamber I’m out in a remote area working on some irrigation project, but my cousin said this is going to negatively affect farmers. This is going to affect our community, and I said, ‘Oh wow. Would you please do me a favor and talk to some of those guys as to why this is a problem. That would really help me. So, I never did hear back.”
John didn’t respond to AZ Free News’ request for comment.
Utah State Treasurer Marlo Oaks affirmed the reality of ESG discrimination in an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson last week. Oaks explained that ESG was a “problematic” outgrowth of something investors call “socially responsible investing,” or “SRI.”
“ESG engages with companies and engages with the market to drive a political outcome. That’s why it’s so problematic,” said Oaks.
Oaks claimed that ESG was one of the reasons why Americans are facing high gas prices. He explained that there was a supply issue because companies lacked capital. Oaks attributed the 90 percent drop in investments — from 59 funds totaling $46.6 billion in 2015 to 11 funds totaling $4.6 billion in 2021 — to ESG discrimination.
“People have decided that they do not want to participate in the fossil fuel industry, and so they are cutting off capital,” said Oaks.
The concept of ESG dates back to 2004, as Forbes reported in a 2008 investigative piece on the subject, when the former United Nations (UN) Secretary General Kofi Annan invited over 50 of the top financial institution CEOs at the time to an initiative to influence markets using ESG screens. Reports produced by this initiative coining the term ESG prompted the New York Stock Exchange to roll out its Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) in 2006 and the Sustainable Stock Exchange Initiative (SSEI) in 2007.
At present, companies that apply ESG scoring look to Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics developed by the World Economic Forum (WEF), a pro-globalism lobbying organization, to determine their measure of ESG enforcement.
Over 70 major international companies covering nearly all aspects of consumerism use the WEF metrics system, among them a number of financial services companies (emphasis added): Bank of America, Bayer, Boston Consulting Group, bp, Dell Technologies, Deloitte, Fidelity International, Heineken, Hyundai, IBM, Kia, Lord, Abbett & Co., Mastercard, Mitsubishi, Moderna, NASDAQ, Nestle, Paypal, Salesforce, Sony, and Unilever.
The world’s greatest asset manager, BlackRock, is listed as one of WEF’s 100 strategic partners. Also listed are Amazon, AstraZeneca, Chevron, Cisco, Citi, Coca-Cola, General Electric (GE), Goldman Sachs, Google, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Hitachi, Honeywell, HP, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Meta (Facebook), McKinsey & Company, Morgan Stanley, PepsiCo, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, S&P Global, Uber, UPS, Verizon, Volvo, Volkswagen, and Western Union. (Again, we added emphasis to those financial services companies of interest).
Although the WEF referred to their metrics system as one related to “capitalism,” their use of the term is contested. WEF Founder Klaus Schwab meant for his redefined version of “capitalism” to be understood through a term he coined, “stakeholder capitalism,” which posits that modern enterprises must serve those who benefit from corporate behavior, stakeholders, in addition to shareholders to achieve long-term growth and prosperity. Hence, social credit scores.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Arizona House approved a universal expansion of the state’s school choice program on Wednesday afternoon. It now heads to the Senate for review.
The legislation, HB2853 by State Representative Ben Toma (R-Peoria), prompted protracted arguments that delayed the vote for about an hour. House Republicans managed to overcome Tuesday’s budget disputes to rally the majority to pass the bill, 31-26 along party lines. Anti-school choice activists in the gallery shouted “Shame!” repeatedly as the vote totals were read, adding to their general disruption and commentary presented throughout the hour-long debate on HB2853.
Democrats asserted that public schools weren’t fully funded, insinuating that was why they fell short in the eyes of Republicans and what they claimed was a minority of Arizona parents. They insisted that universal school choice through the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) Program contradicted the will of a majority of Arizona voters.
Republicans argued that school choice should be the option for all students, regardless of income or zip code. They repeated the idea that parents were the ultimate accountability for student success and outcomes, not government.
As the final vote and argument presented, Toma argued that Democrats’ logic meant that voters couldn’t ever possibly change their mind on the subject of school choice, which he insisted wasn’t true. Toma insisted that dollars should follow the students and not be the ownership of individual systems.
Toma wondered why private schools should be the exclusive domain of the wealthy, citing back to committee testimony from Drew Anderson — a South Phoenix pastor, Democrat, and beneficiary of school choice, which lifted him out of the squalor of public schools and onto a path resulting in his becoming an NFL player and consequently enabling him to lift his entire family out of poverty.
“This is giving everyone the opportunity to make full use of all their choices,” said Toma.
AZ Free News summarized the highlights of the partisan floor arguments for and against HB2853.
Democrat Arguments Against Universal School Choice:
State Representative Kelli Butler (D-Paradise Valley) characterized the bill repeatedly as “disrespecting the will of voters,” which earned reprimanding from Speaker Pro Tempore Travis Grantham (R-Gilbert). Butler doubted that beneficiaries of the ESA Program were using their funds to “learn anything,” claiming that there wasn’t proper oversight of beneficiary schools’ curriculum.
“They could be learning the most basic things and using our tax dollars,” said Butler.
State Representative Lorenzo Sierra (D-Avondale) said that public schools provided a far superior education, pointing out that 19 out of 20 Flinn Scholars went to public schools.
Sierra also predicted there would be regulations on this bill, speculating that a group of liberals would launch a school built around the 1619 Project, and that the legislature would then attempt to regulate private schools if that happened.
State Representative Judy Schwiebert (D-Phoenix) said that a vast majority of families choose a public district for their children because of their accountability and presence of school boards, calling public school curriculum “well-rounded, publicly vetted, [and] diverse.”
Ultimately, Schwiebert insisted that not all children deserved school choice.
“Technically I know we’re giving it to parents, but let’s be real about it, we’re funneling it to private schools,” said Schwiebert.
State Representative Mitzi Epstein (D-Chandler) said that school choice expansion at this scale would greatly increase cost of administration, and called parents’ access to taxpayer dollars to individualize their children’s education “inefficient.”
State Representative Andrés Cano (D-Tucson) asked his Republican colleagues to submit personal financial disclosures about their benefit to school choice.
State Representative Sarah Liguori complained that the ESA Program was corrupted because some of her wealthier “mom friends” used program funds toward their children’s education. Ligouri said that those individuals should pay for private schooling themselves.
House Minority Leader Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen) claimed that “millionaires and billionaires” would receive a check to subsidize their child’s private schooling. He claimed that private schools wouldn’t return ESA program money even if the family couldn’t cover the rest of the tuition, and that public schools would have to “pick up the slack.”
State Representative Melody Hernandez (D-Tempe) said that expanding the ESA Program would actually trap low-income families in failing schools, many of whom she said were minorities. She called the bill “immoral,” and claimed that Republicans were targeting people like her by expanding a system of oppression.
Republican Arguments For Universal School Choice:
State Representative Lupe Diaz (R-Hereford) insisted that Democrats’ arguments about the harm of school choice couldn’t be true based on the longevity and successes of school choice in Arizona’s history.
“If this program causes so much heartache and blows up public schools, then it wouldn’t have the longevity it has now,” asserted Diaz.
State Representative Shawnna Bolick (R-Phoenix) said she would’ve loved to have school choice options like this growing up, and asserted that it was a good thing that children could use ESA dollars for college education as well.
“Why should we wait until higher education to allow taxpayers to utilize these public dollars for their [children’s] education?” said Bolick.
State Representative John Fillmore (R-Apache Junction) reminded the floor that K-12 spending eats up almost half of general fund money, yet Democrats argued it wasn’t enough. Fillmore also read Arizona Department of Education (ADE) data revealing the low passage rates for children in standardized testing.
“The fact of the matter is, the schools have failed us. Parents are taking their kids out because they see this failure,” said Fillmore.
State Representative Joanne Osborne (R-Goodyear) said that every generation of her family dating back to the late 1890s graduated from Arizona’s public school systems, and that her daughter is a current public school teacher, but that those factors didn’t outweigh her care for children’s needs.
Osborne characterized HB2853 as a win for all Arizona schoolchildren, and asserted that a majority of Arizona parents want school choice. Her remark prompted commentary from the gallery.
Hopefully this time you can control yourselves and not yell in committee hearings and make a spectacle of yourselves. Such behavior is an embarrassment to my profession as a teacher. https://t.co/fQfhq0bFcv
— Paul "nothing but trouble" Boyer (@PaulDBoyer) June 22, 2022
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Less than 24 hours after the Joint Legislative Budget Committee published the proposed budget report late Monday, infighting broke out among Arizona’s House and Senate Republicans.
Tuesday marked lengthy budget discussions in the House Appropriations Committee, but in the Senate discussions were cut off abruptly with an indefinite recess of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Effectively, public budget talks ended before they started in half of the State Capitol.
State Senator David Gowan (R-Sierra Vista) said that the House didn’t honor its agreements to pass some bills; one of those significant ones being the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) continuation.
“The House has decided that they will not honor the deals we created together and move things forward. I know there’s some media out there, social stuff going on, that they’re trying to pin us and maybe leverage us. But the point is here, they blew the deal,” said Gowan.
Gowan added that he wasn’t willing to call the committee together later on in the day, either. It appears that House legislators reneged on some serious closed-door talks — enough to upset him.
“It would be pretty hard for me to want to come back and help people who wish not to honor deals. In that effort, it’s just not appropriate in what just occurred, so I want that out to the world,” said Gowan.
After moving 3 budget bills this morning, the Senate Appropriations Committee has recessed indefinitely due to House Leadership Members going back on a promise to push forward some important Senate budget bills, including the continuation of @AZRegents. @DavidGowanAZ explains⬇️ pic.twitter.com/93zaM20NfH
However, State Representative Travis Grantham (R-Gilbert) contended that he’d never heard of these deals as the House Rules Committee Chairman. He criticized Gowan’s preferences as “special interest” legislation that was “fat, bloated, […] unconstitutional,” and adverse to Republican interests. Gowan didn’t reply.
“I have never discussed a deal, agreed to a deal or been part of some secretive deal to move certain Senator’s special interest bills that are fat, bloated and in some instances likely unconstitutional,” wrote Grantham. “And further, why would we invite and pay an industry, with taxpayer dollars to come into our great state when they will ban, boycott and take away major meetings, corporations and events because of our Republican majorities and sound policies? #BadIdea”
This is interesting 🤨. I serve as the Chairman of the House Rules Committee. I have never discussed a deal, agreed to a deal or been part of some secretive deal to move certain Senator’s special interest bills that are fat, bloated and in some instances likely unconstitutional.
Those weren’t the only serious breaks from presenting a unified Republican front on the budget. Several individual Republican legislators vocalized dissatisfaction with the budget emphatically on social media and during committee votes.
As the majority, the GOP will have to resolve those opposed within its membership if it hopes to secure the budget’s passage before the new fiscal year begins next Friday, July 1.
Among those opposed to the budget are State Senator Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-Scottsdale). She asserted that the budget wasn’t fiscally responsible in the face of a looming recession. Ugenti-Rita scorned provisions of the bill as “pet projects” for fellow members.
I can’t think of anything more fiscally irresponsible than spending recklessly on member pet projects while Arizonans struggle to keep up with crushing inflation.
— Michelle Ugenti-RITA (@MichelleUgenti) June 21, 2022
That contradicted how State Representative Regina Cobb (R-Kingman) characterized the budget during the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday. Cobb said that the proposed budget bills would afford the state with an 8 to 10 percent cushion — enough to “weather the storm” of a pending recession, asserting repeatedly that paying off the pension debt and rollovers would remove troublesome burdens in coming years.
“Are we going to flatline tomorrow or July 1? Absolutely not, but we’ve projected it to be fiscally conservative,” said Cobb. “I think if we’re going into a recession, we’re paying off a lot of debt that could be hanging over our heads during a recession.”
State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) also opposed the budget. He declared that the budget would only worsen an impending sustained recession and current, serious economic destruction. Hoffman criticized the raises to state employees and judges of up to 15 percent. Although Hoffman was the only Republican committee member to vote against the bill, the legislator said that the budget doesn’t reflect the majority’s platform.
“Everything in [our constituents’] lives are going up, and they’re not getting raises right now. If they are, they’re under the inflation rate,” said Hoffman.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a free market policy and advocacy organization, asserted that extraneous funding for agendas contrary to the interests of Arizonans were sprinkled into the budget. In a statement to AZ Free News, President Scot Mussi declared that the budget largely fulfilled Democrats’ wishlist.
“The proposed budget deal includes hundreds of millions in new spending, subsidies for Hollywood liberals to make movies, tax hikes for a Green New Deal transit plan in Maricopa County and special interest pork to buy Democrat votes,” said Mussi. “We should be working toward a budget that has full Republican support, not a Build Back Broke budget supported by Democrats.”
By and large, Democrats focused their comments Tuesday on lamenting the budget’s K-12 spending. Some accused the budget’s design as a “shell game.” Several noted that they didn’t like the idea of funding more border security.
One of the most vocal opponents of the budget, State Representative Kelli Butler (D-Paradise Valley), called the ongoing revenue calculations “irresponsible” during committee. Butler also said that she and a majority of Arizona voters wanted $1 billion for K-12 education. Butler accused the budget of shell games related to taxation that made education funding more vulnerable.
Despite the ongoing economic turmoil and near-universal expectation of a recession, Butler asserted that the economy was “thriving.” Butler also took issue with the fact that she was still getting briefings by midnight and memos from staff at one am early Tuesday, arguing that no legislators had time to figure out what’s all in the budget.
⚠️There may be an #azleg House Appropriations special committee tomorrow at 8am. Bills have not been made public or provided to Democrats yet, but the GOP passed a floor motion for the Approps committee to hear measures “relating to revenues and expenditures.” 🤷♀️ Stay tuned. pic.twitter.com/dSYJY9xBc9
Present at the State Capitol were educator activists with the Arizona Education Association (AEA) rallying for more teacher pay using the $5.3 billion surplus.
Those for the budget praised it for getting more things right to address the state’s current needs. One Democrat, State Representative Cesár Chávez (D-Maryvale) signaled support for the budget, pointing out during committee that the legislature had a little over a week before its deadline for the budget hits. He concurred with his Democratic peers that K-12 education needed a “true, historic investment,” but that he had a responsibility to make the budget work ahead of the deadline.
State Representative Michelle Udall (R-Mesa) offered a list of positives within the budget solving statewide problems: over $1 billion to solve water supply problems; over $1.6 billion overall increase in K12 spending, which meted out to $750 per pupil or a $23,000 increase per classroom; over $1 billion in debt payoff in unfunded liabilities and pensions; over $1 billion increase in public safety (police, fires, courts); and over $500 million to increase health care like in diabetes management training and postpartum care.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R-Mesa) sat next to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his chief operating officer Gabriel Sterling, wearing stoic expressions as they awaited the hearing and eliciting the occasional smile as a tight gaggle of reporters filmed and photographed the trio. Though, later on, Bowers would grow upset, even holding back tears when his responses turned to include references to the Constitution and his daughter, who passed away a year ago.
Also smiling was Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA-28), when he entered the room behind the more somber-faced Committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS-02) and Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY), and throughout his line of questioning.
Thompson commenced the hearing by recapping the committee’s narrative that former President Donald Trump orchestrated the January 6 riot at the Capitol to overturn the 2020 general election, despite knowing completely that he lost the election. The committee characterized Bowers and Raffensperger as two of the handful of “brave” officials who stood between Trump and the 2020 election results.
Thompson said that lack of action would further undermine future actions and lead to “catastrophe.”
Cheney echoed Thompson’s statements, directing viewers to understand calls made by Trump to state officials within the context of the committee’s claim that the former president knew that the election wasn’t stolen. Cheney told viewers that they shouldn’t be distracted by “conspiracy theories and thug violence.”
“The point is this: Donald Trump did not care about the threats of violence. He did not condemn them. He did not care to stop them,” said Cheney. “Today we’re going to see an example of what truly makes America great.”
The committee characterized nationwide discontent with the 2020 general election’s validity as “increasingly violent” in the weeks preceding January 6.
Bowers was the first to testify. As he was about to begin Schiff said he received word from his staff about one of the latest statements issued by Trump claiming that Bowers affirmed that the election was “rigged” and that the former president won Arizona.
“Bowers should hope there’s not a tape of the conversation,” said Trump.
Trump’s statement disrupted the hearing proceedings; it prompted Schiff to vet Bowers about Trump’s claims and the content of the call in question. Bowers categorically denied Trump’s account of the phone call.
In the statement, Trump called Bowers a “RINO,” short for “Republican In Name Only” and referred to the January 6 Committee as the “Unselect Committee.”
Bowers asserted that on a phone call with Trump, lawyer Rudy Giuliani promised to give him evidence of mass voter fraud, but never did. Bowers said he told Trump he refused to overturn the election results because it was against his oath as an elected official.
“I said look, you’re asking me to do something that is counter to my oath, that is sworn to the Constitution, that I uphold it,” said Bowers. “This is totally foreign as an idea or a theory to me, and I would never do anything with such deep magnitude without consultation of my attorneys.”
Bowers held back tears as he described how Trump’s pressure caused internal turmoil for him, because his faith inspired a deep respect for the Constitution as a divinely inspired document.
Bowers confirmed that he met with Giuliani at a Phoenix hotel after the election. He recounted that Giuliani repeated claims of mass voter fraud, which Arizona State Senators pressed him on. Bowers said that he and Giuliani both pressed Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis to turn over the evidence to the Arizona legislators, but she kept claiming that she didn’t have it on her.
Bowers denied ever receiving evidence of mass voter fraud from Trump’s team. He noted that he and other members of his staff remembered Giuliani admitting that they had no evidence, just theories on voter fraud in the 2020 election.
“My recollection: he said ‘We’ve got lots of theories, we just don’t got evidence,’” recounted Bowers.
The committee revealed previously undisclosed video of “Stop the Steal” protestors, which prominently featured Jacob Angeli, commonly referred to as the “QAnon Shaman,” who is currently serving his 41-month sentence for breaking into the Capitol on January 6.
Bowers alleged that Trump’s lawyer John Eastman asked him to deny the 2020 election results and “just let the courts sort it out later.” He clarified that he recalled Eastman saying, in so many words, that the authority of the legislature was plenary and that he as house speaker had the authority to undertake the requested action.
Additionally, Bowers alleged that Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) asked him to support overturning the election results.
BREAKING: @speakerbowers testifies that on January 6th, while MAGA Republicans were attempting to overthrow our government and threatening to kill the Vice President, @RepAndyBiggsAZ called Bowers and asked him to support overturning Arizona's election results.
— Arizona Democratic Party (@azdemparty) June 21, 2022
Schiff referred back to a previous press release from Bowers in which the speaker declared he wouldn’t decertify the election results.
“We have no legal pathway nor to my knowledge in federal law, for us to execute such a request. I am not allowed to walk or act beyond my authority. If I’m not specifically authorized as a state legislator, then I cannot act,” said Bowers.
In closing, Bowers read from his diary, citing that his Christianity moved him to oppose Trump. He also described facing angry constituents in the aftermath, some of whom came to his home while his gravely ill daughter was inside.
“It is painful to have friends who have been such a help to me turn on me with such rancor,” read Bowers. “How else will I ever approach [God] in the wilderness of life, knowing that I ask this guidance only to show myself a coward in defending the course he led me to take?”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Scottsdale Unified School Board member Jann-Michael Greenburg could be removed from office for actions he undertook last year to circumvent Arizona’s Open Meeting Law, and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office does not want taxpayer funds to be spent for Greenburg’s defense.
Those are just some of the items of relief the AGO suggests in its lawsuit filed Monday against Greenburg and SUSD for alleged OML violations in August 2021 when Greenburg -then the board president- cut off speakers during Calls to the Public and barred other speakers from discussing district-related issues even though such comments must be permitted.
Records show the AGO received several complaints last summer about how the SUSD board was conducting meeting at its members were considering a mask mandate and proposed instructional model. The district later told Assistant Attorney General Michael Catlett the board was permitted to apply content-based restrictions on Call to the Public speakers.
However, Catlett’s lawsuit asks a Maricopa County judge for a judgment that Scottsdale Unified School District and Greenburg violated the OML during the cited meetings. The AGO also seeks an order prohibiting SUSD from expending any public monies for Greenburg’s legal representation, although any civil penalty ordered upon Greenburg would be paid for from the District’s general fund.
The AGO’s lawsuit makes clear that a public body is not required to offer a Call to the Public during its meetings and hearings. But if it does, there cannot be undue restrictions on what speakers can say except that the comments must address topics falling within the public body’s jurisdiction.
“Purposefully structuring a meeting so as to apply content-based restrictions on public comments addressing an issue listed on the same agenda and discussed at the same meeting transforms the public comment session into something other than an ‘open call to the public,” according to the lawsuit, which the defendants must answer within 20 days of service.
The AGO’s legal action against Greenburg and SUSD comes just weeks after Vernal Lee Crow of Glendale was sentenced for criminal violations of the state’s Conflict of Interest law while he served as vice-chair of the Arizona School Facilities Board (ASFB)
Crow was indicted in November 2021 for four alleged violations of state law in connection with votes he took part in in 2016 and 2017 despite the decision benefited himself or a family member. He later pleaded guilty to knowingly failing to disclose his association with Red Tree Consulting and failing to recuse himself from a vote in 2016 which awarded $112,000 for a repair job at a school in the Snowflake Unified School District.
As part of the deal, Red Tree Consulting was paid $12,050 of those funds. In addition, Crow pleaded guilty to knowingly failing to disclose another conflict of interest involving Red Tree Consulting which received $42,200 from a roof construction contract approved by the ASFB in 2017 for a school within the Casa Grande Union High School District.
The Attorney General’s Office is also following a legal challenge filed by a Sierra Vista resident in February 2019 against the Cochise County board of supervisors for appointing one of the supervisors to a lucrative judicial position.
The AGO has submitted numerous briefs in the case, which is scheduled for a trial setting hearing Tuesday morning.
In the case, then-Cochise County Supervisor Pat Call was appointed to a vacancy for justice of the peace at double his county salary. Call did not cast a vote on the appointment, but he was openly involved in a decision to not seek interested applicants for the position despite the fact several were present at the meeting.
Call also took part in an executive session prior to being nominated immediately after the supervisors resumed the public portion of their meeting.
In a rare move, the Greenlee County judge hearing the case at the request of Cochise County’s presiding judge disclosed the normally secret minutes of that executive session. The judge noted “justice so demands” the release.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled last fall that the local resident can sue Call and the other two Cochise County supervisors -Ann English and Peggy Judd- for alleged OML violations. In addition, Chief Justice Robert Brutinel wrote that as a county resident and constituent of the board of supervisors, the resident “has an interest in protecting against self-dealing by Board members.”
It is expected that any trial will not occur until early 2023. English and Judd remain on the county board, although the lawsuit seeks to have them removed from office.
Call completed his term as justice of the peace at the end of 2020. He did not run for the office in the 2020 General Election.
On Thursday, a district court judge denied a mother’s motion to dismiss in a lawsuit filed against her by the creator of a dossier on parents who opposed his son’s tenure as school board president. The mother leaked the dossier, located on a Google Drive, to local reporters after noticing the URL in pictures sent to her by the school board president.
Mark Greenburg — father of the former board president of Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) who had access to the dossier, Jann-Michael Greenburg — sued SUSD parents Amanda and Daniel Wray for allegedly violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a federal law on unauthorized computer access. The Wrays countered by filing an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss, which claims that a lawsuit is filed strategically to prevent public participation. Judge Douglas Rayes, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, denied the Wrays’ motion to dismiss.
Rayes said his decision was a “close call.” He acknowledged that the elder Greenburg lacked a password protection on the Google Drive, therefore making it accessible to anyone with its link. However, Rayes agreed with the elder Greenburg’s argument that this lack of security didn’t render the Google Drive dossier open to the public, and that Wray’s inadvertent discovery of the URL didn’t give her authorization to access the dossier.
The Rayes declared that the elder Greenburg “sufficiently plead the elements of a violation” of the CFAA. He established a scheduling conference on July 7 at 11 am, with a deadline for a revised proposed discovery plan on June 30.
Wray deferred to her counsel for comment.
In a statement to AZ Free News, Harmeet Dhillon — the managing partner of Dhillon Law Group representing Wray — clarified that the judge’s decision only reflected Greenburg’s allegations and didn’t constitute Rayes’ final decision on the case.
“A motion to dismiss is typically made at the outset of most cases in federal court, and it is a test not of the facts of the case, but rather of the plaintiff’s allegations,” said Dhillon. “While we respectfully disagree with the court’s ruling and believe the law requires dismissal at this stage, we look forward to the discovery phase of the lawsuit and to establishing the actual facts in this case.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
