Showing posts with label Freedom to Read Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom to Read Act. Show all posts

Saturday, February 7, 2026

NJ Freedom to Read Act Model Policy Is Invalid Since It Was Written by a Fired Librarian

NJ Freedom to Read Act model policies are invalid since they were written by a fired librarian.  School librarian Elissa Malespina, who was fired from Verona High School for book displays on race and LGBTQ+ themes, and school librarian Martha Hickson, who retired from North Hunterdon-Voorhees High School before she could be fired for giving kids obscenity under NJ 2C:34-3, wrote the policy for the new New Jersey Freedom to Read Act.  Martha Hickson introduced New Jersey State Senator Andrew Zwicker to the Freedom to Read Act that is written by the American Library Association in Chicago, Illinois.  That is now New Jersey law.

Now revealed is that Martha Hickson and Elissa Malespina also wrote the school policies required under the law:

Martha Hickson

Before I was fired, I already knew Martha Hickson’s story. I reached out to her for help and guidance while writing South Orange and Maplewood’s district policies related to censorship and book challenges. Her experience and deep understanding of how these attacks unfold shaped that work in lasting ways. The policy we wrote, informed by her knowledge, is now used as a model across New Jersey.

When I did lose my job, Martha was the first person I called. I was crying. I was overwhelmed. I was dealing with severe depression and anxiety triggered by my firing. Martha did not just listen. She helped me find a therapist and a doctor. She gave me the courage to speak publicly about what happened, not for attention, but so others would not feel as isolated as I did.

Seeing us together on screen, as we testified at a hearing in support of New Jersey’s Freedom to Read bill, was a reminder that this work is collective, and that the relationships built in this fight often begin long before crisis hits.

Source: Elissa Malespina blog post provided in X post thread shown below. 


When you see Elissa Malespina together with Martha Hickson on the screen in "The Librarians," it's right after Martha Hickson says, "fifth graders have penises."

And these are the people who wrote the policy to be followed by all schools in New Jersey and modeled in other states.  

Unbelievable.

The policy schools must follow per a law written by American Library Association was written by a school librarian fired for gr[00]ming and another school librarian who retired before job action could be taken against her and who worked with ALA to get the Freedom to Read Act passed in New Jersey—because "fifth graders have penises."

"The policy we wrote, informed by her knowledge, is now used as a model across New Jersey."

Unbelievable.




To assist boards of education in developing a policy on the curation of library material within a school library, the commissioner shall develop a model policy. In developing the model policy, the commissioner shall consult with the State Librarian, the New Jersey Association of School Librarians, and the New Jersey School Boards Association.

Clearly we have an admission here that the model policies were written by two school librarians, one fired and the other who helped ALA get it passed into law in New Jersey.  

We have an admission against interest here ("policy we wrote, informed by her knowledge, is now used as a model across New Jersey") that the policies were not developed as required by the law, or at a minimum one of the consultants who wrote the model policy for the commissioner had already been fired for ideologically gr[00]ming school children.  

School Library Journal tells us what happened from a point of view very much in favor of Elissa Malespina.  Still, we get a sense of why she was fired:

"Mrs. Malespina does a nice job with creating collections for display about equity, specifically regarding the themes of race and LGBTQ.  However, the selections never seem to go beyond those two topics.  This has created the perception that the library is about only two things and not necessarily about promoting a variety of different books centered around a variety of different topics.  Although it is difficult to say, this may be why the number of books that are checked-out of the library is not as high as might be expected.  This approach to library displays creates a student space that is not inclusive enough to a wide variety of topics such as sports, politics, health, science fiction, graphic novels, etc.  In order to create positive interactions with students and parents the space has to be a hub for events and a space that promotes a variety of topics and interests.  It is recommended that there is a reflection on what the space is for and how it can be better utilized to serve the student and broader community."

In the review's conclusion, the principal said he would not recommend that the school bring Malespina back for the next school year.


So now we know why she was fired.  My opinion from reading this is that she was fired for ideologically gr[00]ming school children.  Whatever—this is the person who wrote the policies where the law says "the commissioner shall consult with the State Librarian, the New Jersey Association of School Librarians, and the New Jersey School Boards Association."  Even if Elissa Malespina was actually consulted under the law, her having been fired for ideological gr[00]ming of children should have invalidated her participation.  Thus the model policies are essentially invalid.  

Any law case brought to invalidate the NJ Freedom to Read Act will point to this very issue.  Any other state laws copying from New Jersey will be similarly suspect.

The law is not being followed.  The policies as written violate the law.  This was always the intention of the cleverly worded FTRA as written by ALA, but here is the solid proof that ALA people—including a fired librarian—wrote the policies, not those charged with that duty under the law.  

So the model policies are illegal.  Schools need not follow illegal model policies, and those that already have should rescind them.  They were written by a school librarian fired for ideological gr[00]ming of school children, not as required by law.



Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 125 W State St, Trenton, NJ 08608, USA

Wednesday, January 28, 2026

Freedom to Read Act Incorporation Into School Policy Eliminates Local Control

Dear North Hunterdon-Voorhees School Board Members,


For weather-related reasons, I will not attend the Board of Education meeting Tuesday, January 27, 2026.  But I hereby submit comments nonetheless for your consideration.  I see you are having a "first reading."  So I suppose my comments would apply to that or to a possible "second reading."


[Read the 11pp proposed policy 6163.1 here.]

[Watch NHV BOE discuss the policy here.]


Easy suggestion first.  I'd like to tell you my experience obtaining the policy on the agenda so you can know how some might view it, or actually not view it, which is the problem I'll be addressing.


It did indeed take a bit of rooting around to finally find the page having the agenda.  Then the agenda says, "First Reading of Policy."  It's too general.  What policy?  It's under "Policy and School Security," so that tells me almost nothing.  I took a gamble and clicked on the link.  No real notice went to the public other than "first reading of policy."  It's almost like it's sneaking in or perhaps being hidden from people like me.  Only then did I finally see "Policy 6163.1 – Media Center/Library" and the changes to be made, then only if I scrolled down to the next page.  You really have to dig and maneuver to get to the point where you finally get the notice you should already have had from the agenda but it's not there.  The problem with this is, besides not providing notice in an understandable form, people who are casually involved in school workings may not ever get to the point of being properly noticed, while the regulars who already know one has to root around are at a significant advantage over casual viewers.  You could be discouraging casual viewers, let alone not providing adequate notice.  So that's just a suggestion for you to consider.


Another easy suggestion.  Existing policy requires people to state their name and address and affiliation, if any, before speaking.  At least in other states, that's a violation of state and federal constitutional rights to seek redress of the government and attorneys general have forced public bodies to drop such requirements.  Further, in modern times, that exposes people to potential harassment, and it gets recorded on video, so the exposure is perpetual.  American Library Association members, for example, file OPRA/FOIA requests for such information, then it is used in lawsuits, movies, whatever.  Such information should be clear that it is optional, not required.  Who knows, it might even cut back on the need to respond to OPRA requests if the information is simply not collected in the first place, thereby reducing any costs in researching and replying to such requests.


Now regarding the 6163.1 proposed media center, library policy:


1) The policy allows for electronic databases to be used, and they should.  However, some of these databases expose children to inappropriate material not allowed if such material were purchased in print for the school library.  The proposed policy does not account for that and it should.


2) The policy states, "Every student shall have access to a media collection containing materials appropriate to age level...."  Gender Queer is "age appropriate" but it otherwise is what Pico calls "pervasively vulgar or otherwise educationally unsuitable" so it may be removed from the library.  Playboy would be age appropriate, for example.  That is a weakness in the policy.  The policy would allow Gender Queer while Board of Education v. Pico, U.S. Supreme Court 1982 holds the exact opposite result and the book would be removed.


3) The former version of the policy said, "The superintendent has final responsibility for the selection of media center materials by professionally trained personnel including media specialists, teachers, principals and supervisors."  That's being removed.  The new policy eliminates the Superintendent and substitutes therefor the school librarian.  Under Pico, the Superintendent has the authority to immediately remove material that is pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable.  No review committee would be needed, saving everyone a ton of time and money.  Under the new policy, the school librarian now makes the decisions, not the Superintendent.  That eliminates the protections of Pico.  Further, nothing at all will ever be deemed as inappropriate by school librarians, other than works by conservatives or dead white males, a term I get from American Library Association directives.  The former school librarian for example, Martha Hickson, testified in Trenton, as shown in the new American Library Association film called "The Librarians," that, "in my professional role, there is no p*rn*graphy for minors in, uh, school libraries so there is no need to restrict it.  Book restrictions are, however, a form of censorship.  Your personal opinion about obscenity does not make it so."  Martha Hickson goes on to say, in response to what a legislator said, "fifth graders *have* p*nises."  So the change in the policy to eliminate the Superintendent and substitute in the school librarian will ensure that nothing ever gets removed.  Voting for this policy change is like voting for anything goes in the school library.  Librarians are trained by American Library Association that nothing is ever p*rn*graphy because only a lawyer or a judge can make that decision, and, as Martha Hickson testified, it will be claimed it's censorship to remove such material.


4) The policy does not disclose that Pico applies and California v. Miller, U.S. Supreme Court 1973, does not apply to school books.  The "as a whole" standard comes from the Miller case.  Miller does not apply in schools.  Pico does.  So, for example, a school may remove Gender Queer from a school library for being pervasively vulgar and/or educationally unsuitable.  Indeed Pico has been used repeatedly to remove that very book successfully.  Miller, on the other hand, would require Gender Queer to stay in the library, since "as a whole" it is not obscene, and only a judge can rule it as such anyway.  So under Pico, a Superintendent may remove Gender Queer immediately, and under Miller, Gender Queer will never be removed.  No book ever will be removed under Miller since Miller is almost never used to determine works to be obscene.  It would be a ridiculous endeavor since a case by case basis would be needed, precisely the reason why American Library Association holds it out as the gold standard when in reality it does not apply.


5) The policy is essentially a restatement of the NJ Freedom to Read Act, a law that will eventually be challenged and fail since it overrides Pico and N.J.S. 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Persons Under 18, at a minimum.  So I'll save the time of laying it out instance by instance but the comparison with FTRA shows it is essentially a copy, and FTRA was written by American Library Association in Chicago, IL.  Board members have an ethical duty to apply local law, not material written by outside special interests groups like American Library Association.  For example, the diversity and inclusion language as defined by American Library Association and included in the proposed policy and FTRA would make it so Gender Queer may not be removed, despite Pico, despite 2C:34-3.  So yet again, the policy ensures children will, by policy, be exposed to material that could otherwise be removed or not purchased, but for the policy.  As if the policy overrides New Jersey law and the U.S. Supreme Court.


6) The policy's removal request procedure is one recommended by American Library Association to intentionally a) drag out the process, b) cost money, c) provide the excuse that book reconsiderations waste money, d) asks leading questions of requesters to get them to say things not relevant to the review but that can be used to sink their request, e) unnecessarily narrows the pool of potential complainants.  I'm surprised it didn't put a multi-year limit on again requesting a review since Martha Hickson said it should be five years precisely to eliminate the constitutional rights to seek redress of the government for four years.


7) The inclusion of the parent in the review committee is an American Library Association ruse.  It's to make parents think their input is included.  In reality, however a parent votes, it is always overridden by the rest of the committee.  It's a ruse.  In a Florida case, three parents did a comprehensive review of three books and decided two stay but one goes.  They wrote a full report.  The committee ruled to keep all books without even considering the parents' input for which they worked so hard as part of the committee.  When the parents asked why their hard work was not even considered, the librarian on the committee said it wouldn't have mattered since the rest of the committee voted to retain all three books.  This is the very ruse that this new policy embeds.  I guarantee you all parental input on the committee will be ignored.  This will be at least the third way that absolutely nothing will ever be removed from the school library.  And it is all because Chicago's ALA has been working towards this goal for over 60 years.  If you vote for this policy, you vote for Chicago ALA policy and your kids will be harmed.  ALA is getting the school to play all these games at whatever time and expense just to cover up that nothing will ever be removed from the library.  Just skip over the charade and make the policy say nothing will ever be removed from the library, so don't ask, and don't complain, and that's it.  Done.


8) The policy says challenged material stays on the shelves until the challenge is finalized.  That language comes directly from American Library Association.  This is now a fourth way the children will remain exposed to inappropriate material despite Pico, 2C:34-3, and the Superintendent's previous ability to immediately remove materials under Pico.


9) The policy exempts from criminal and civil liability school librarians who violate 2C:34-3. By policy, poof, 2C:34-3 disappears.  Pico disappears.  Superintendents making appropriate decisions under Pico, poof, gone.  All by the proposed policy.


10) The policy does not cover the communications of the school librarian.  Former school librarian Martha Hickson used her personal Twitter account to conduct school business.  She even provided training to librarians nationwide while recording on school grounds presumably during school time specifically telling them to direct message her on her personal Twitter account.  Multiple OPRA requests for her communications were easily defeated by claiming there's no control over her personal accounts and she otherwise has no emails to disclose--because she did everything on her personal account.  That cannot be allowed to happen again.  Require that school business is conducted on school-supplied resources for the board's own good and for proper compliance with open government and records retention laws.  Consider making persistently conducting school business on personal accounts a terminable offense.  Librarians are trained to use Slack and Signal to circumvent parents, legislators, and the courts.  That must not be allowed and can be precluded by policy.  It should be added to the proposed policy, although it suffers from so much that it should be defeated.  Sure, let them use personal accounts for personal goals and friendships and general librarianship growth, but for school-related communications, that should be precluded.  Martha Hickson, for example, regularly communicated school business via her personal accounts with American Library Association.  That is precisely why 400 people came to school board meetings and overwhelmed the four locals, two of which now appear derisively in "The Librarians" by American Library Association.  The ALA president even gave a speech to all ALA membership that Martha Hickson was super important in ALA's imposing its way in North Hunterdon-Voorhees High School.  All done without any records exposed to open government laws or retained under government retention laws.  That has to be stopped.  If anyone wishes to engage American Library Association about school business, it must be via use of school communications means subject to New Jersey laws and board policy.


11) The policy doesn't even address the Mahmoud v. Taylor case, a significant U.S. Supreme Court decision from June 27, 2025, addressing parental rights, religious freedom, and the use of certain books in public elementary schools. Public schools cannot compel young children to participate in instruction or exposure to materials that interfere with religious upbringing in a significant way. The Court emphasized parental rights in directing the religious and moral development of their children.  American Library Association hates that case.  That's why it's not in the proposed policy.  The only parental rights present are a ruse, as previously stated.


12) "In selecting materials to recommend for purchase, the media specialist shall evaluate the existing collection and consult reputable, unbiased, professionally prepared selection aids, and specialists from all departments and/or all grade levels." This is specifically designed to use only reviews from ALA-approved sources including ALA's own Booklist.  It is specifically designed to disallow consideration of reviews from parental groups like RatedBooks dot org.  It embeds into the policy an anti parent policy. Did you know that ALA hated BookLooks dot org so much (a parental review site that no longer exists) that it created its own Book Résumés that's just like BookLooks only without the excerpts and graphics but with all the glowing reviews from the approved book review sites?  Did you know it was Martha Hickson who initially used NHV time, money, and servers to build what eventually got adopted by ALA as the new Book Résumés site?  So the proposed policy includes yet again another subtle but present anti parent policy.


13) Limiting access to children to developmentally appropriate material is not censorship.  


14) Books may have s*xualized content but it's not noted in Scholastic reviews and the like.  The policy does not address that.  


15) Nor does the policy address librarians making available websites that provide access to the very material school policy otherwise precludes.


So what we have in the new policy is the wording from the Freedom to Read Act from Chicago's American Library Association that has been working for 60-plus years to eliminate parental rights and indoctrinate children, crystallized into a policy that was essentially hidden on the agenda page, all to ensure children by policy get indoctrinated and s*xua*lized per ALA diktat.  And the policy lacks significant protections and allowances for parental rights.


I have no clue who came up with the wording for the proposed changes, but that person or those persons did what's best for American Library Association, and the school children be damned.


Don't be angry with the way I worded things or what other board members may say about me.  Set that aside.  For the children, consider what I have said and consider if you really truly want this proposed policy 6163.1 to be applied to your school and your school children and your school parents.  


Your policy should allow your Superintendent to remove books like Gender Queer and if it doesn't, something's off.  Recall the whole multi-year battle over the books started when the Superintendent told Martha Hickson to remove a certain book, and Martha Hickson went immediately to American Library Association, got them instantly engaged, then intimidated the Superintendent into backing down from his request.  The ALA bullying was nonstop after that.  And it continues to this day with the proposed wording of policy 6163.1.


Thank you for your anticipated consideration of these matters.


Dan Kleinman


—


Dear NHV Board of Ed,

I hereby add additional information based on new information just received, then one additional comment.

Beth Bourne has published on X https://x.com/bourne_beth2345/status/2015961359180300604?s=61 that the California Freedom to Read Act is causing librarians to admit nothing will ever again be removed from a library no matter how inappropriate.  She includes a video of the librarians not caring a whit about harm to the children.  

This is directly applicable to proposed policy 6163.1 since the proposed policy is essentially a mini version of the New Jersey Freedom to Read Act.  So you can see the similarity between the California and the New Jersey version, because American Library Association wrote them both, and whomever wrote the proposed policy also inserted the American Library Association wish list that means "no restrictions for children."

As I stated in my original email this morning, the proposed policy implements the NJ FTRA so it will ensure school children are indoctrinated and s*xualized per ALA via NHV BOE school policy.

Here is what Beth Bourne wrote, an analogous confirmation from a California public library:

🚨🚨UNREAL: Yesterday I asked the indoctrinated far-left librarians in Davis why they want kids to access s[*]xually-explicit books that encourage p[*]rn consumption, like “Let’s Talk About It.”

The library manager said the recent passing of “California Freedom to Read Act” (AB 1825) means no restrictions for children.
 
The librarians also seemed fine with predatory men self-identifying into the Women’s Restroom.

To prove the stupidity of the policy, I identified as a man and walked into the Men’s Restroom.

You can’t hate @GavinNewsom and @TheDemocrats enough. 
“The California Freedom to Read Act (AB 1825), signed in September 2024 and effective January 2025, requires public libraries receiving state funds to adopt written collection development policies by January 1, 2026, to prevent book bans.

It prohibits removing materials based on topics or views, protects library staff from retaliation, and forbids restricting access based on age or background.”

Why do children need to be indoctrinated into radical queer theory and transgenderism?
Davis branch library in Yolo County, CA near Sacramento.

While I am writing with that new information, here is an additional problem with the proposed policy.

16)  Policy 6163.1 should provide for parents what the librarians and school teachers already have, namely, access to a database of all holdings in the school library and all holdings in classroom libraries, sorted by classroom.  Full transparency is the key here.  How can parents exercise constitutional rights if they are kept in the dark about school and classroom library contents?  Martha Hickson even put up black paper on the library windows to prevent anyone from looking in.  I entered the library once for a few minutes when it was open and was accused of criminal activity for breaking into the library after hours, supposedly.  Why the secrecy?  Why the reaction if gosh forbid a parent gets inside the library?  Why the OPRA request for library security camera videos to see the alleged crime?  How will parents know what's in the library if some policy does not require full access and if the library windows and classroom libraries are kept out of sight?

And this suggestion is also based on new information since I wrote this morning:

17) Policy 6163.1 should include a means to perform appropriate background checks on possible school librarian candidates, including psychological examinations.  Times have changed and librarians have turned dark.  Such people should be weeded out.  I won't list names but one librarian has just been arrested for threatening the President.  Another one threatened the President but has not yet been arrested.  Others threaten Elon Musk with death.  School librarians.  Martha Hickson herself posted about 8647, so yet another threat to the President, right from the former school librarian who first ran to American Library Association and caused all the problems in the first place.  Granted she was retired at the time of the threat.  A library director in Louisiana was recorded days ago telling a patron that her "d*ck" was bigger than his so he should "s*ck" hers.  Multiple librarians are involved in what's called ICE protests but is really part of a planned insurrection against the American government.  Oh yes, Martha Hickson is one.  Such people should not be hired.  The policy should weed them out, perhaps even allow for their removal if such behavior occurs during employment.  Any investigation should include their social media.  Many adults working in the public school system suffer from one or more mental health issues.  The proposed policy leaves out that these kinds of people should not be anywhere near children, and there's no mention of anything at all to prevent such possible disasters.  The Boy Scouts say "Be Prepared."  The proposed changes to policy 6163.1 leaves on the blindfolds.

Thank you for these additional considerations.  You're in charge.  You need to do the right thing now by setting appropriate policy.  The proposed policy is a disaster waiting to happen.

—
URL of this page: 




Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional School District, NJ, USA

Monday, November 24, 2025

Informing Iowa Legislators About American Library Association

Critique of the American Library Association's Influence on Libraries and Legislation

The American Library Association (ALA), headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, has pursued policies for over 60 years that critics argue undermine parental rights in favor of unrestricted access to materials for children. Central to this is the ALA's "Library Bill of Rights," adopted in 1939 and amended multiple times (most recently in 2019), which prohibits denying library use based on age, among other factors. This policy effectively treats age-based restrictions as discrimination, allowing children access to any materials without barriers. For historical context, see Rita Koganzon's analysis of 1970s school book controversies, which highlights how such disputes empowered parents to challenge perceived indoctrination in educational content.

This approach has accelerated the inclusion of s[*]xually explicit or educationally unsuitable materials in public and school libraries, prompting increased parental challenges. In response, librarians—often aligned with ALA guidance—portray these complaints as burdensome, despite the ALA's role in creating the underlying policy tensions.


ALA's Push to Codify the Library Bill of Rights into Law

To preempt parental challenges, the ALA has advocated for codifying its "Library Bill of Rights" into state laws, potentially overriding the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Board of Education v. Pico (1982). In Pico, a plurality opinion held that school boards cannot remove books from libraries solely due to ideological disapproval but may do so if materials are pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable. Books like Gender Queer have been removed from schools under this standard, which ALA opposes.

One court has ruled that the "Library Bill of Rights" holds no legal weight—it's merely aspirational and "means nothing" in a binding sense, as stated in Berry v. Yosemite Community College District (2019). Despite this, ALA has influenced over a third of state legislatures to consider such codification through initiatives like the "Right to Read Act" (also known as the "Freedom to Read Act"). As of November 2025, at least nine states have passed versions since 2023: California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Additional states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and others are considering or have advanced similar bills in 2025 sessions. For a detailed parent-focused critique, see the World Library Association's page on the Right to Read Act, which outlines how it limits parental petitions and grants librarians immunity from obscenity laws.

Part of ALA's push to get laws passed includes building in exemptions or affirmative defenses to obscenity crimes for librarians. That has been a long term ALA goal. See: Reisman, Judith A. and McAlister, Mary E. (2018) "Materials Deemed Harmful to Minors Are Welcomed into Classrooms and Libraries via Educational 'Obscenity Exemptions,'" Liberty University Law Review: Vol. 12: Iss. 3, Article 3. Available at https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lu_law_review/vol12/iss3/3:
Similarly, the American Library Association leans upon First Amendment protections against censorship to justify the obscenity exemption for libraries, often offering derisive remarks about parents' efforts to use "harmful to minors" statutes to remove inappropriate books.
ALA's strategy positions itself as both the source of the issue (unrestricted access) and the solution (legislative protections), aiming for nationwide adoption. In Iowa, from which ALA President Sam Helmick hails, this raises questions: Will Iowa follow suit and embed this Chicago-based organization's creed into state law?


Tactics for Influencing Legislators

ALA employs sophisticated methods to advance its agenda, often through affiliates like EveryLibrary, which provides training on "long-term inoculation"—building relationships with legislators to shape policy preemptively. This includes "getting to know your legislators" and "identifying and activating" supporters to prioritize children's unrestricted access. View the training here: https://tinyurl.com/IntellectualFreedomAndBooks. EveryLibrary's ties to ALA are detailed in analyses showing how it facilitates advocacy while maintaining a "crypto" (hidden) affiliation.

Another tactic involves "sustained messaging" to reframe s[*]xually explicit materials as essential for diversity, inclusion, and self-representation, downplaying concerns about appropriateness. This was revealed in training by ALA's former top lawyer, which Utah Senator Mike Lee highlighted in a 2025 Capitol Hill hearing on "banned books." Lee described it as "saying the quiet part out loud," accusing ALA of grooming and s[*]xualizing children to provide minors with explicit content while hiding it from parents. Watch the clip: https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c5085234/user-clip-sen-lee-comments.



The "book ban" narrative has been debunked by the U.S. Department of Education, which dropped actions against parents after investigations. Critics trace this hoax back to ALA influence, used to mislead the public and maintain access to controversial materials.  Official U.S. Department of Education Press Release (January 24, 2025) announces dismissal of 11 complaints, rescission of guidance, and end to the "Biden's book ban hoax." https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-ends-bidens-book-ban-hoax


ALA's "Unite Against Book Bans" and Legal Setbacks

In response to successful Pico-based removals of "Gender Queer," ALA launched "Unite Against Book Bans" to lobby for laws blocking parental complaints and First Amendment redress rights. Recent setbacks include Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), where the Supreme Court affirmed parents' rights to opt children out of certain classroom content conflicting with religious beliefs. ALA has interpreted this narrowly, claiming it doesn't apply to libraries and warning against its misuse for censorship, but critics argue it's spreading misinformation to downplay parental opt-out options.

ALA's policies have real-world impacts, including harm to children. Detransitioner Maia Poet has publicly shared how a school librarian promoted trans ideology, leading to her binding her breasts and lasting physical damage, without parental knowledge. Watch her testimony, also shown below: https://x.com/thepeacepoet99/status/1890950617998217606. Another case involves a public library director reporting a child's death linked to ALA-recommended practices: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/ALAKillsBoy.html.


Deceptions and Hypocrisy

ALA often misleads on legal standards, insisting the "as a whole" test from Miller v. California (obscenity) applies over Pico's "pervasively vulgar" threshold, confusing discussions on school materials. It portrays challengers as extremists, ignoring polls showing most Americans oppose explicit books in schools. Tactics include faking "banned books" lists to mobilize communities (e.g., inflating LGBT book challenges until exposed), plagiarizing maps, and funding astroturf groups to overwhelm legislators with emails and turnout. ALA even trains librarians to evade open records laws by, among other things, using private channels like Signal.

Internally, ALA faces hypocrisy accusations. Trevor Dawes, a university librarian, criticized its shift to closed-door meetings, violating its own transparency policies and undermining advocacy for open government. As Dawes notes: "The irony is particularly sharp: an organization whose members fight daily battles against censorship... is now restricting access to its own decision-making processes."

ALA critiques rating systems by parents like BookLooks or Rated Books (https://www.ratedbooks.org/) while creating its own "Book Résumés," (https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/) which omit excerpts and emphasize awards, always deeming books suitable for all ages.  Compare the ratings for Gender Queer on Rated Books with Gender Queer on Book Résumés.


Another significant deception is the claim of an ongoing "culture war." After 60 years of effort by ALA to accelerate the inclusion of s[*]xually explicit or educationally unsuitable materials in public and school libraries, to the point where such material is essentially in every school library today, efforts to stop this are characterized by librarians as merely for political gain.  

For example, at the 5:39 mark of ALA's new documentary called "The Librarians," someone says, "Politicians are playing a very dangerous game when they try to make school libraries battlegrounds for their political war, because the only people that that is going to hurt are kids." See https://thelibrariansfilm.com/. So 60 years of effort by ALA cannot be countered by politicians because supposedly the kids are going to get hurt in a very dangerous game, all for politics.  It is a significant deception.


Implications for Iowa

Iowa legislators should scrutinize ALA's influence, given its president's local ties. Past Iowa issues include unfiltered library Internet leading to child molestation (exposed in 2011, prompting failed filtering legislation), s[*]x offenders in libraries (addressed in 2009 law), and misleading claims by directors like LaWanda Roudebush on filters. Recent writings highlight Iowa librarians supporting ALA's Marxist-leaning president https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/12/list-of-librarians-who-agree-marxism-is.html and details on stopping indoctrination: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/01/details-on-stopping-indoctrination.html.

Should Iowa adopt laws from an organization that flouts its own standards? Legislators face ALA-orchestrated pressure—expect astroturf campaigns—but prioritizing parental rights and child safety aligns with constitutional precedents.

If more details are needed, let me know.



Endnotes

1. American Library Association, “Library Bill of Rights” (adopted 1939, latest revision 2019)  

2. Rita Koganzon, “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s,” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26  

3. States that have passed “Right to Read Act” / “Freedom to Read Act” legislation (as of November 2025)
EveryLibrary Bill Tracking (includes Freedom to Read protections for libraries/librarians): https://www.everylibrary.org/billtracking Note: This page tracks positive "right to read" bills alongside other library legislation. For recent examples, see Delaware's passage announced November 10, 2025: https://www.alsc.ala.org/blog/2025/11/go-delaware-another-state-steps-up-for-the-freedom-to-read/ (confirms Delaware as a new adopter, building on prior states like California, Illinois, and others). ALA's adverse legislation page also contextualizes supportive bills: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/adverse-legislation-states.

4. World Library Association – Detailed parent-oriented critique of the Right to Read Act  

5. Board of Education v. Pico (1982) – key Supreme Court case on school library book removal  

6. Berry v. Yosemite Community College District (2019) – court rules ALA’s Library Bill of Rights “means nothing” legally  

7. EveryLibrary / ALA training on “long-term inoculation” and building relationships with legislators  

8. Documentation of EveryLibrary as a “crypto” ALA affiliate and its “long-term inoculation” tactics  

9. Senator Mike Lee (Utah) – “saying the quiet part out loud” clip from 2025 Capitol Hill hearing on banned books  


10. Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) – Supreme Court affirms parental opt-out rights; ALA’s response  

11. Maia Poet (detransitioner) testimony on harm caused by school librarian promoting trans ideology  

12. Public library director reports child death linked to ALA-recommended practices  

13. Trevor A. Dawes, “ALA’s Closed-Door Dilemma: When Governance Reform Conflicts with Organizational Values” (July 19, 2025)  

14. Guide for parents/legislators on obscenity law, Pico vs. Miller standards, and stopping indoctrination  

15. Harris Poll and other surveys showing majority opposition to s[*]xually explicit books in schools  

16. Exposure of ALA faking “banned books” lists to inflate LGBT challenges (2011)  

17. ALA caught plagiarizing a student’s “Censorship Map”  

18. ALA astroturfing: creating and funding local “grassroots” groups to pressure legislators  
    Bribes/incentives detail: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/03/ala-details-bribes.html Recently in Alabama, four separate ALA-created groups failed to stop the library board from voting against ALA:
Meanwhile, the board finalized a restriction on transgender books for children and teens. Once approved by legislative services, the code states that “any library material regarding transgender procedures, gender ideology or the concept of more than two genders” must be weeded out of library circulation or moved to the adult section. See: https://www.al.com/news/2025/11/alabama-library-board-finalizes-transgender-book-restrictions-delays-fairhope-funding.html

19. ALA’s deleted article on “sneakily” pushing Drag Queen Story Hour into conservative towns (archived)  

20. Librarians trained to evade open-records/FOIA laws using private channels (Signal, Slack, etc.)  

21. Iowa-specific posts referenced and other Iowa posts covered by SafeLibraries
    - Iowa librarians supporting Marxist ALA president: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/12/list-of-librarians-who-agree-marxism-is.html  
    - Child molestation in Iowa library linked to unfiltered porn (2011): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/07/porn-and-sex-abuse-in-our-public.html  "Consider the case of a child molested in a public library bathroom and no one knew that it was the result of p[*]rn viewing!  I was the person who exposed the truth.  As a result of my work, the Iowa state legislature attempted to pass state library computer filtering legislation.  It would not have happened but for my involvement in that community."
    - Davenport Public Library director misleads on filters (2010): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2010/04/revive-iowa-internet-filtering-law-for.html
    - Unimpeded child p[*]rn viewing in the Council Bluffs Public Library" (2009): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/07/terminal-cancer-in-council-bluffs.html
    - Iowa nixes s[*]x offenders from libraries (2009): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/05/iowa-nixes-sex-offenders-from-libraries.html
    - ALA ruse keeping p[*]rn in Council Bluffs (2008): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2008/08/ala-ruse-keeping-porn-widely-available.html
    - Burlington library director misleads on Internet filters (2008): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2008/04/burlington-ia-library-director-misleads.html
    - Media needs to wake up to library crime (2008): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2008/04/media-wake-up-to-library-crime-source.html
   

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Des Moines, IA, USA

Thursday, September 4, 2025

FOIA OPRA Request for Comegno Legal Bills and the Daughter Who Reads Almost Every Day

I've had to submit to the North Hunterdon-Voorhees school a FOIA request that in New Jersey is called OPRA.  It's my opinion the taxpayers are getting ripped off by the Comegno Law Group that is billing the school/taxpayers for work it really is did/volunteered for Chicago's American Library Association.  The OPRA is to determine if this is the case.  

Further, an ethics decision may have been biased in an unethical way, indicated to me by the following sentence: "My daughter reads almost every day."  

Here is a Table of Contents/Evidence to support the OPRA request and more, and all evidence is included below:

Table of Contents/Evidence:
  • NJ SEC Scheduling Letter
  • Public Comments at the 8/19/2025 School Ethics Committee Meeting
  • OPRA Request 007: Comegno Legal Bills
  • Recording of Public Portion of NJ SEC Meeting 8/19/25
  • Graphics of NJ SEC Scheduling Letter 8/12/25
  • Public Disclosure by Me of the Above Matter on Liberty Launch Group

Below is that OPRA request, but first is some information I reference in the OPRA request, namely, the scheduling letter from the NJ School Ethics Commission.  

There is also a transcript of the public comments made at that meeting.  I made the recording and the transcript.  The entire recording is linked below.  To my knowledge, the NJSEC itself makes no such records public, so below is likely the only copy.  You will be told by the people who support American Library Association to ignore me and especially the evidence, the recording.  Will you not read the transcript for yourselves?  Will you not listen?

At the hearing a public statement was read out loud about the imminent public comment portion of the meeting.  That statement included the following admonition:
Parties to a matter currently pending before the Commission are reminded not to publicly litigate the merits of their case.  The Commission's review in the matter will be limited to the written [unintelligible] and any public comments or statements which address the merits of the matter will not be considered by the Commission today.
In the transcript a Commissioner speaks during a break between public comments that, "My daughter reads almost every day."  Cute, right?  Not cute.  It is an indication, at least to me, that he heard what the Comegno attorney argued, then, despite the unethical nature of her comments and her refusal to follow direct verbal direction from the Commission chairman and again from the Commission attorney, he was swayed by her unethical comments.  Why?  Because his takeaway was the importance of libraries and how his daughter enjoys reading almost every day.  I could hear nothing from him about how the Comegno attorney just blew through ethical requirements without a care in the world.  To me, this was the most disheartening part of the hearing and it told me this guy is going to fall for the America / democracy / libraries sob story and decide not to hold the school board responsible for breaking the law.

And should anyone argue the Comegno lawyer's words were simply effective in making a point since the Commissioner was swayed to think of his daughter and her reading thanks to libraries, you don't get or give credit when an attorney achieves a goal in an unethical manner.


I've said this is my opinion, but it's also my opinion anyone looking at the scheduling letter, its red, italicized, and underlined admonition, the public comments and NJSEC's Chairperson's opening statement and NJSEC lawyer's verbal admonition, will come to essentially the same conclusion that Comegno Law Group is draining board/taxpayer money to fund instead volunteer work for the American Library Association that has control over the school board (as my ethics complaint may decide), the legislature that passed the Freedom to Read Act written by ALA (Senator Andrew Zwicker who called me a "meddling minority" told me so directly at a hearing in Trenton), and is now attempting to use taxpayer funds to illegally sway the NJ School Ethics Commission in violation of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Ethics [potentially RPC 3.3(a)(4 & 5); 3.4(c); 3.5(a & c); 8.4(a & c & d)].

Remember, the Comegno Law Group attorney is
  1. experienced in education law practice,
  2. got the 8/12/25 letter not to talk about the case,
  3. heard the opening comments that parties may not talk about the case, discussed the case anyway,
  4. heard the Commission attorney tell her directly to stop talking about the case, but went right on ahead talking anyway to do what she knows not to do and to three times ignore the School Ethics Commission.
Three strikes you're out, yes?  Or no, because librarians are wonderful people who would never hurt anyone, American Library Association is wonderful, its Freedom to Read Act is about liberty and democracy, so the ethics case is moot, nothing to see here, let's move on.

She concluded by directly arguing the merits of the case despite multiple warnings, and even got in the good word for American Library Association's Freedom to Read Act as the reason to defy my ethics complaint by summarizing, "the record shows the members acted in good faith, within policy, and in line with the state law protecting access to books."  They did not act in good faith.  They violated ethics laws, and their attorney violated professional ethics laws, all to keep children exposed to inappropriate material in schools, in my opinion.  

Besides, that Freedom to Read Act was signed into law on December 9, 2024.  The alleged unethical actions taken by the board predated that and the ethics complaint itself was filed on November 4, 2024.  Even the respondents themselves complained in their response, "this matter was initially and incorrectly filed on October 23, 2024."  Gosh forbid a pro se complainant should misfile a complaint without the petty attorney trying to score points because screw justice.  Always the effort to belittle, to attack the messenger, but still, Comegno Law Group knows my ethics complaint predated the passage of the Freedom to Read Act, so summarizing by saying, "the record shows the members acted ... in line with the state law protecting access to books," is not only arguing the merits of the case, but it is deceptively dishonest to argue something that postdated the complaint.  It is factually false.  It might even right there represent an additional violation of yet another professional rule of attorney ethics.  "RPC 8.4. Misconduct; It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:... (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."  And all after having been warned three times not to discuss the merits of the case, in a matter that may represent another violation of the ethics code.  Had she not violated at least one rule, another rule would not have been violated.  My opinion, of course.

I am publishing all this so the taxpayers and especially the parents at the school can see for themselves exactly what happened at the 8/19/25 NJSEC meeting and how they are being used/sponged off of to promote a Chicago ALA agenda—all to keep school kids subject to ALA's 60 year effort to indoctrinate school children (shown here).  They can also see that local control needs to be restored from ALA's overarching control, such control being so complete that a law firm willingly defied rules of professional conduct, starting with their own school board.  The ALA policy embedded in school policy needs to be removed and books that are pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable per Pico standards need to be summarily removed, Freedom to Read Act notwithstanding.  The US Supreme Court trumps the Chicago American Library Association.

That initial ethics decision will be out in a few weeks.  Let's hope soon afterwards some school board members become ex school board members.

And get rid of that unethical law firm.  What's the problem?  Plenty of ethical lawyers can take their place, do far better, and not rip you off.  My opinion!


NJ SEC Scheduling Letter (red, italic, underlined lettering in original):

12 AUGUST 2025

SCHOOL ETHICS COMMISSION

August 12, 2025

For Complainant
Dan Kleinman
641 Shunpike Rd #123
Chatham, NJ 07928

For Respondents
John B. Comegno II, Esquire
Giulia Lima, Esq.
Comegno Law Group
521 Pleasant Valley Avenue
Moorestown, NJ 08057
SUBJECT: DAN KLEINMAN v. JESSICA VIOTTO, BETH KOTRAN, TARA
MARIE HINTZ, BRYAN CHAPMAN, DANIEL SPANTON, GLEN
FARBANISH, JOHN MELICK, BRENDAN MCISAAC, NORTH
HUNTERDON-VORHEES BOARD OF EDUCATION, HUNTERDON
COUNTY, SCHOOL ETHICS COMMISSION DOCKET #C89-24
Dear Parties:

Please be advised that the above-captioned matter will be discussed by the School Ethics
Commission (Commission) at its meeting on August 19, 2025. At this meeting, the Commission
will discuss whether probable cause exists for the allegations in the Complaint. Probable cause
shall be found when the facts and circumstances presented in the Complaint and Written
Statement would lead a reasonable person to believe that the School Ethics Act has been violated.

In addition, because Respondents alleged that the complaint is frivolous, the Commission
will also discuss this allegation, and any response thereto. If the Commission determines that the
Complaint is frivolous, such a finding may constitute sole grounds for dismissal, and such
dismissal shall constitute final agency action. N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.4. In addition, pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:12-29(e), the Commission may impose a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00).

The Commission’s meeting will take place at the New Jersey Department of Education,
100 Riverview Plaza, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. Although you are permitted to attend public
session, please note that this is not an opportunity to discuss or to otherwise publicly litigate the
merits of the case. Further, the Commission’s review and discussion of this matter will take place
in Executive Session.

Page 2

Following its meeting on August 19, 2025, it is anticipated that the Commission will adopt
a decision at its next regularly scheduled monthly meeting thereafter. Once adopted by the
Commission, the parties shall be duly notified of the Commission’s decision (in writing) and will
be advised as to how the above-captioned matter will be processed.

Subject to the exceptions set forth at N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.6(g), the Commission shall hold all
information confidential regarding any pending matter until the Commission finds that a school
official has violated the Act, or until such time that the above-captioned matter is settled,
withdrawn or dismissed.

If you have any questions, please contact our office at school.ethics@doe.nj.gov.

Sincerely,
/s/
Dana Jones
School Ethics Commission 


Public Comments at the 8/19/2025 School Ethics Committee Meeting:

Giulia Lima, Esq., Comengo Law Group for Respondents:

Good morning members of the Commission. I am Giulia Lima, Counsel for Respondents, the North Hunterdon-Voorhees Board of Education members named in the matter C89-24. This matter involves a May 7, 2024, vote by the North Hunterdon-Voorhees Board of Education on a library book challenge. This challenge was handled under established district policy. A review committee of educators, administrators, and a parent, considered the book and issued a divided recommendation. 

At the public meeting, more than twenty residents spoke with most supporting the book remaining. The board then voted not to remove it. That decision was made through the proper process and within the board's authority. 

The process was consistent not only with the district policy, but also with the principles later codified in the New Jersey Freedom to Read Act, which affirms students' right to access information and prohibits book bans based on disagreement with ideas. 

Dana Jones, School Ethics Commission Staff Member and Attorney:

Wait, Miss Lima, I just want to remind you, you can't talk about the merits of the case. 

Giulia Lima:

Okay.

Dana Jones:

So we talk and then the Commission decides whatever they decide. They're only going to consider what was in the complaint and the writ. 

Giulia Lima:

Yes.

Dana Jones:

So not, nothing of what you're talking about today. We do want to make sure that you don't talk about anything that we consider merits, defenses to the case. 

Giulia Lima:

Okay. 

School libraries have centers for voluntary inquiry, play a unique role in promoting intellectual freedom, providing equitable access to learning, resources, and promoting democracy by providing services to all, regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, age, ability, gender, or social economic status. 

In sum, the record shows the members acted in good faith, within policy, and in line with the state law protecting access to books. 

Thank you for your time and your commitment to our schools, our teachers, and our students. 

...

Male Commissioner:

My daughter reads almost every day.

...

Jeannine Pizzigoni, School Ethics Commission Staff Member:

Can you state your name, please, and what case you are here for?

Dan Kleinman, Complainant:

Yes, my name is Dan Kleinman. I'm here for the case of the young lady over here that ...

[Discussion ensues within the SEC about Commissioner Richard Tomko having to go offline again like he did for Giulia Lima for conflict related to North Hunterdon-Voorhees BOE as he was applying for a contract with the BOE.  He has recused himself from the C89-24 process.  He will have the same access to the final decision after it is posted on the Commission’s website when the public will have access to that decision.]

I came here because I'm interested in the administration of justice. I'm fascinated by this School Ethics Commission. I wanted to just observe for myself what was going on in this case. I wasn't planning to say anything.

Jeannine Pizzigoni:

Okay.

Dan Kleinman:

And then the attorney spoke up. [Laughter ensues.] She's a very nice lady. 

But she did speak up on the, on the, uh, related to the case and and how you should basically be voting because she pointed out to how important libraries are and it's essential to our democracy that we have libraries. 

Then she was told, "We're sorry, you can't talk about things related to this case." And then she proceeded to proceed with more things related to this case. It's an attempt to spin the Ethics Commission. 

I'm not impressed with that. I just came to observe today. And what I observed was the continuing effort to claim that librarians are wonderful people and all books are wonderful, as the reason why this case should be, in your mind, just set aside. 

It's not the issue whether all libraries are wonderful, and I'm not gonna argue the merits of the case. I'm not impressed that she would, came up here and talked about this in violation of your rules, was warned about it, and then proceeded to continue to talk about this case in violation of the rules. 

It's not impressive. I hope when you make your decision that your decision is based on everything it's supposed to be based on, and the justice of the matter, and whether the law was violated, and that's it. 

And this is a very fascinating process. And I thank you guys for the efforts that you all put into doing this every month, it's a very important issue. 

Thank you.

Robert Bender, School Ethics Commission Chairperson:

I can tell you that, uh, as a commissioner, uh we've read, this material, it's not just a statement here or there, but we look into the depth of each case. And uh, uh, are we swayed? Uh, no, uh, we listen, uh, just as, as, you know, free speech, but at the same time, what we're dealing with is very serious. And, right now, we, we have read this, uh, we are certainly in detail in this, uh, and, uh, we'll give that great consideration. So, we don't take these things lightly. 

Dan Kleinman:

Okay.  This, her argument that the Freedom to Read Act passed in New Jersey, you know, that was written by Chicago's American Library Association. It's almost proof of what I've been saying. But thank you very much.


OPRA Request 007: Comegno Legal Bills:

Please provide all legal bills and accompanying documentation of what was done and when from any law firm including the Comegno Law Group, P.C., wherein the bills relate to preparation for and appearance at the August 19, 2025 New Jersey School Ethics Commission.  Consider this an open request until I am provided with documentation, just in case any bill has not yet been received.  Requesting this OPRA request to remain open will obviate the need for additional OPRA/FOIA requests, thereby saving time and money for all.  Once all such documents are provided to me, this request may be considered closed.  I am aware some law firms write legal bills in a manner that essentially circumvents OPRA laws.  Let's hope such games will not be played here or that will result in additional OPRA requests and associated costs that you will have brought upon yourselves.

My interest in the subject matter contained concerns saving the school district legal fees for work Comegno Law Group may have performed gratis for Chicago's American Library Association.  Essentially, Comegno Law Group, while ostensibly representing the school district, in reality performed work that may have violated New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct so as to benefit a special interest group, namely, American Library Association, the very same special interest group that is at the basis of the ethics complaint about the potential for the school board having broken ethics laws by favoring special interest groups in a manner against the law, among other things.  Comegno Law Group may have unethically promoted the interests of the special interest group while completely ignoring the interests of its client school board; any interests of the school board that were not also interests of the special interest group were not discussed at all before the NJ School Ethics Committee.  For example, the issue of board members having promised to vote a certain way on a certain issue in exchange for votes was not discussed.  Comegno Law Group was told repeatedly, including in person at the 8/19/25 meeting by the attorney for the Commission who had to interrupt the Comegno Law Group member, not to speak on topics relating to the case, but that didn't stop Comegno Law Group from charging ahead anyway with its open advocacy for special interest group American Library Association and for New Jersey's Freedom to Read Act that was written by American Library Association and passed as law in New Jersey.  The argument was essentially that since that law passed, the ethics matter under review was irrelevant, so no ethics were violated.  Ethics violated but not discuss by the attorney were essentially ignored.  Comegno Law Group may have violated rules of professional conduct to support American Library Association, but it never supported its school board client in the other ethics issues in the ethics complaint, and it certainly does not benefit the client to act unprofessionally to support the very outside interest group the school board may have also unethically supported, namely, American Library Association, the very basis of the ethics complaint.  So basically, Comegno Law Group volunteered work for American Library Association but charged the school board for that work.  This OPRA/FOIA request is to determine the existence and extent of the damage, if any, so it may be returned to the taxpayers.  I was at the hearing to see all this.  I have produced a transcript and the notice of hearing from the Commission to prove all this.  No member of the school board was in attendance, so only I saw this.  The meetings are not officially recorded.  I recorded the meeting on my iPhone and I produced an accurate transcript as a result.  So there's zero change Comegno Law Group can say it didn't happen or can keep people from hearing it for themselves.  All work billed to the school board related to the above should not have been billed to you.  The school board should refuse to pay any portion of any bill related to this matter.  Further, it should send a demand for payment of legal fees to American Library Association that directly benefitted from Comegno Law Group's unethical actions.  Finally, to avoid these litigious people supporting American Library Association's ability to harm school children with inappropriate material suing me, the above is all my opinion.


Recording of Public Portion of NJ SEC Meeting 8/19/25:


Graphics of NJ SEC Scheduling Letter 8/12/25:


Public Disclosure by Me of the Above Matter on Liberty Launch Group:

Spotify:


X:



NOTE ADDED 15 SEPTEMBER 2025:

The OPRA request was effectively denied and closed on 12 September 2025.  From experience, 100% of the time a FOIA request is denied, the government is hiding something.  

In my case, they are hiding legal bills.  In the past I received legal bills.  Not this time.  They are definitely hiding something.  I suspect it's that the law firm is serving American Library Association, not the school district itself.

They say they don't have the legal bills because they are "sent directly to the District's insurance carrier."  If that is true, then they have not reviewed the bills and they are possibly violating even more ethics laws.  They might even be hiding that they know tax money is being used to support Chicago ALA goals.

I'll have to dig in more now, and they will eventually blame me for wasting the public's money.  It's like they blame book challengers for wasting public money when it's ALA diktat that creates the book challenges in the first place.

Here is the actual rejection letter, and click to enlarge:




Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 256 County Rd 513, Glen Gardner, NJ 08826, USA
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)