BREAKING: Woke educators SUED over surveillance dossier on Scottsdale parents concerned about mandates, CRT

On Thursday, Harmeet Dhillon announced that a lawsuit has been brought against the Scottsdale Unified School District and others within the district that spied on and created a dossier regarding parents that advocated for in-person learning and transparency.

Plaintiffs Amanda Wray, Kim Stafford, and Edmond Richard are suing the Scottsdale Unified School District, Defendants Jann-Michael Greenburg, Mark Alan Greenburg, and Dagmar Greenburg, for First Amendment violations, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Defamation, and False Light Invasion of Privacy.

It was revealed last fall in an email from Jann-Michale Greenberg that his father, Mark Greenberg "had amassed a comprehensive dossier on Amanda, Kim, Edmond, and many other parents, collecting pictures of children, homes, and cars; background checks; court records; business records; mortgage and credit documents; and much more," Dhillon said.

"The Greenburgs made strategic use of the dossier Mark maintained in order bully critics into silence. SUSD itself took steps to silence critics, even hiring outside legal counsel to send a cease and desist letter to a parent group that included 'SUSD' in its Facebook name," she added.

Dhillon said that the Greenburgs’ "tactics went far beyond the usual bag of dirty tricks common in politics."

"Instead, they acted in concert under SUSD’s authority to retaliate against Amanda, Kim, and Edmond for exercising their First Amendment rights, thereby violating their Constitutional rights," she said.

"Turning Point USA, Dhillon Law Group, and Wilenchik & Bartness are all proud to stand with Amanda, Kim, and Edmond so that they can obtain a legal remedy for the wrongs the Greenburgs and SUSD committed and put a stop to the Greenburgs’ reign of terror within the District," she added.

The three plaintiffs are all either current or former SUSD parents, and participated in engagement regarding school closures, curriculum issues, and transparency in 2020.

According to Dhillon, Jann-Michael Greenburg, the then-newly elected SUSD Board member, "was intent on silencing critics and disparaging them."

His father, Mark Greenburg, reportedly infiltrated a parent Facebook page using fake identities to keep tabs on what the members of the group were saying. The lawsuit claims that Greenburg "has a long history of 'settling scores' against personal enemies through malicious litigation, defamatory impersonation, and harassment."

This parent group was formed in the summer of 2020, and was called Scottsdale Unified – CAN (Community Advocacy Network). Wray served as a group administrator, as well as Stafford, who later left the group in March of 2021 after the goal of in-person learning had been achieved.

"The Facebook Group initially began as a way for concerned parents to discuss issues related to SUSD’s COVID-19 policies, but later expanded its focus to include general matters of concern such as curriculum, school budgetary priorities, and student safety," the lawsuit stated.

For over a year, the defendants gathered information on the plaintiffs "public and private data, internally shared information (including private communications solely possessed by the District), and used this data to attack Plaintiffs for their speech," the lawsuit added.

"SUSD Superintendent Scott Menzel, despite lacking access to the group, would monitor its activities based on selective information, presumably fed to him by the Greenburgs," Dhillon said in a summary of the case.

"Defendants’ primary repository for this cache of information about their political opponents was a public Google drive, which one of the Defendants revealed to a Plaintiff in Fall 2021. The drive included addresses, a full social security number, background checks, divorce records, photographs, videos, recordings, internal unredacted communications parents had with the District, and much, much more (“Google Drive” or “Dossier”). This drive reached the size of approximately 100 gigabytes of data," the lawsuit explained.

"The goal of Defendants’ conspiracy was clear: to silence and punish dissenting voices and frighten away other potential speakers who might dare express an opposing point of view," the lawsuit states.