Showing posts with label SchoolLibraries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SchoolLibraries. Show all posts

Sunday, August 2, 2026

The Double Standard: 'Destroy Them' and 'Go In for the Kill' Are Just Idioms—But a Red Circle Around a Librarian's Head Is Targeting

In the recent discussion of cartoonist Ryan Estrada, we saw him publish guidance for authors and activists confronting parents who challenge materials in school libraries. One section states: “And then, you get to the fun part… SIX: Destroy them; Everyone is on your side and paying attention. Now you go in for the kill.” (Emphasis in original.) He has also offered to provide more “ammunition” to those who email him. When called out, Estrada has framed the language as figurative—an idiom—and responded with a comic casting a critic as the big bad wolf.¹

Contrast that with the treatment of school librarian Amanda Jones.

In July 2022, after Jones spoke against censorship at a Livingston Parish Library Board meeting in Louisiana, the Facebook page of Citizens for a New Louisiana posted a photo of her speaking. The image placed a red circle (with a white border) around her head and asked why she was “fighting so hard to keep s[*]xually erotic and p[*]rnographic materials in the kid’s section.”²

Jones later described the circle as a “target.” In her memoir That Librarian she wrote: “They posted a picture of me with a target around my head. According to them, it’s just a circle, but who are they kidding?”³ She launched multi-year defamation lawsuits against the posters, arguing the image and accompanying text damaged her reputation and contributed to harassment.⁴

Yet her first reaction was different. In a training video she recorded for other librarians (August 28, 2023), Jones herself admitted:

“When I first started being attacked, I thought ‘This is not serious, like this is ridiculous.’ I went on their page and put the laughing emoji… and I wish I could take that back cuz it’s not funny… and they talk about that all the time. ‘She put the laugh, she thinks it’s funny.’ So I learned that the hard way.”⁵



What she initially treated as absurd enough to laugh at publicly became, within weeks, the foundation of sustained litigation. A red circle is one of the most ordinary tools in digital photo editing and annotation—the default highlight function in countless apps precisely because it draws the eye without implying violence. Treating that common editing mark as actionable “targeting” while dismissing explicit militaristic language directed at parents (“Destroy them,” “go in for the kill,” offers of “ammunition”) as mere idiom is the double standard in plain view.

Parents who speak at school board or library meetings are fair game for destruction rhetoric and cartoon portrayals as the big bad wolf. Librarians and their allies who face ordinary visual highlighting of their public comments receive multi-year lawsuits, national media sympathy, and awards for courage.

One set of statements is explained away as colorful language. The other is treated as a serious threat of violence—even when the person later suing over it first responded with a laughing emoji.





If you're a big bad wolf who wishes to support the legal defense of free speech against double standards and SLAPP-style suits arising from reporting on these issues:  

———

END NOTES


2. The original Facebook post and the red-circle description appear in Jones’s own petition for damages (filed August 2022) and are summarized in contemporaneous reporting:  

3. Amanda Jones, That Librarian: The Fight Against Book Banning in America (Bloomsbury, 2024), quoted in Oprah Daily, August 27, 2024: https://www.oprahdaily.com/entertainment/books/a61600534/the-librarian-amanda-jones-book-bans/

4. Court records and appellate history confirming the multi-year litigation:  

5. Transcript of Amanda Jones’s August 28, 2023 training video for librarians (timestamp ~16:04), published on SafeLibraries, September 2024: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/09/amanda-jones-trains-librarians-to-blind.html  


—



Saturday, August 1, 2026

'Destroy Them': Cartoonist Ryan Estrada Turns Real Dictatorship Book Bans into a Campaign Against American Parents

Ryan Estrada is a cartoonist who gained prominence in part through the real experiences of his wife, Kim Hyun-sook (also rendered Gim Hyeon-suk or Hyun Sook). Under South Korea’s military dictatorship of Chun Doo-hwan, she participated in an underground “banned book club” that read forbidden works by Paulo Freire, Che Guevara, Noam Chomsky, Betty Friedan, and others. She faced genuine risks of surveillance, arrest, interrogation, or worse, and was interrogated by the Korean Central Intelligence Agency. That was actual government book banning and suppression of dissent.

Estrada later used his artistic skills to depict her experiences. He has since leveraged that platform to promote the American Library Association’s narrative of “book bans” in the United States. In the U.S. context, the term is routinely applied to parents and community members who object to certain materials in public school libraries or classrooms—materials many view as age-inappropriate. Critics of this framing, including parents speaking at public meetings, are frequently labeled “book banners,” “extremists,” or “Christofascists.”

Estrada has gone further. He has published detailed guidance for authors and others on how to confront parents who challenge books at school board meetings. One section includes the language: “And then, you get to the fun part… SIX: Destroy them; Everyone is on your side and paying attention. Now you go in for the kill.” (Emphasis in original.)

I previously highlighted the danger in that rhetoric (July 27, 2025). 


Today Estrada reframes my criticism as a claim that “AUTHORS WANT TO ‘KILL’ PARENTS!!!” and responds with a comic titled “KILL `EM WITH KINDNESS,” casting me as the big bad wolf. The comic was presented at the Perth Comics Festival 2026.

I documented the sequence here::


Others have also noted the pattern:


One reader even points out that Estrada harassed him for several days and ended up censoring citizens:



I am currently defending against SLAPP-style lawsuits related to reporting on these issues. If you wish to support the legal defense of free speech in these matters: 


NOTE ADDED EVEN DATE:

Already Ryan Estrada has responded to the above post.  He essentially doubled down.

"...and just since the person mentioned here wrote a whole essay on the premise that he never said it, here it is."

He shows a graphic that does not say, "authors want to 'kill' parents!!!"  Instead, it says, "authors ... oppose parents."  It's not the same.  And he quoted me saying, "Author makes call to 'kill' parents...."  He did.

Then he follows up with a second post:

"But he knows that, as even in the very rant where he claims he didn't, he calls me a 'stochastic terrorist' for using the idiom 'go in for the kill' in the context of public debate.

"Bro confuses kindness with obedience so thinks a public disagreeing with him is not just unkind, but terrorism."

Here he continues to lie and mischaracterize to cover up that I outed what he did/said.  

"Rant," he says.  I had nothing to say about him for quite a while until he wrote an entire comic making me the big bad wolf where it was displayed at the Perth Comics Festival.  I guess I'm in good company given cartoons like this:




I did not "rant."  I responded.  And I would not have responded had he not lied in a way that threatens me with his stochastic terror.  He said that I said, and has since doubled down on that, that authors want to "kill" parents.  He knows that's a lie but that it will rile people up.  

Indeed one responder has already said, "I would love to read more about this idea that authors want to 'kill' parents, that's wild."  Another said, "Aw, c'mon, Ryan, how is a raving lunatic supposed to remember every rant?"  To that, Estrada responds by admitting to misquoting me, but keeps up the ridicule: "I do regret that I got one word of the quote wrong, because 'makes call to kill parents' is actually a much funnier misquoting of my original point."  Is he admitting to intentionally misquoting me to be "much funnier"?

I did not claim stochastic terror was caused by an idiom nor that it was in the context of public debate.  That's his words.  Rather I linked his entire piece for full context, and it's in the context of what he wrote, not public debate.  That context includes his writing detailed directions for others to target parents who challenge books.  

Among other things, he says the "fun part" is when you "destroy them" and "go in for the kill."  "Go in for the kill" are the only words he put in bold font.  If I said that about school librarians, if I wrote a long piece to urge other parents to eliminate obstructions by school librarians, if I said the "fun part" is when you "destroy them" and "go in for the kill," you can bet Estrada and many others would be calling that stochastic terror and calling for me to be investigated and mass canceled. 

If I recall correctly, Estrada previously reported me to the FBI essentially for stochastic terror.  He reported that I tweeted urging parents to attend an American Library Association conference.  I did.  I do.  Parents should attend to see for themselves how children are harmed by ALA policy and practices.  When they do they are shocked that the vast majority of training is about DEI.  Taxpayer money pays to send librarians to ALA conferences to learn about librarianship, not about DEI.  It's a legitimate concern to raise.  It's not stochastic terror to urge people to attend ALA conferences.  

But apparently he thought that was because any excuse to silence me and parents like me can and will be used.  So if he can say it's stochastic terror for me to say parents should go to ALA conferences, then I can certainly say the full context of what he wrote, including the "fun part" is when you "destroy them" and "go in for the kill," is stochastic terror.

This is not a case with the public not agreeing with me, as he implies because he always belittles people with whom he disagrees.  This is not a case about me at all.  That's misdirection.  This is a case where he is providing specific training on how to eliminate parental opposition to inappropriate material in schools by using "fun" training to "destroy them" and "go in for the kill" at school board meetings, then he goes on to mock people who call him out for providing such training.  And he makes it sound palatable by raising the specter of real censorship by a Korean dictator and comparing it with America parents who wish to keep inappropriate books out of American public schools.  Inappropriate books in schools like this one, "Gravity's Rainbow":


Yes, he's not going to kill anyone and he's not openly urging that, but stochastic terror is the public demonization of someone in a way that is statistically likely to inspire random acts of violence by ideologically motivated individuals, while Estrada maintains plausible deniability.  Stochastic itself means random or probabilistic.  Over time, someone in a large audience, and he has one, relatively speaking, almost 16K followers on Bluesky, may act out to have "fun" "destroying" and "killing" someone he maligns as he does, like he is maligning me.  What he said is false and is not legitimate political criticism.  I would never say about school librarians what he says about parents.  Go have fun destroying and killing.  No one would.

The more he speaks, the more he reveals about himself (like his admitting to a misquote).

Do not allow this man Ryan Estrada to attend any school or library event, whether in person or via electronic means.

That's my opinion, anyway.


Quote from @ProtectSaladoKs:

He sure has an interesting way of spreading kindness.

Don’t forget this gem from “The Ryan Estrada Method”: 😆

“If you ever ... need some hints on where to look for the ammo to destroy them, feel free to email ...”

If anyone wants a fun mental challenge, explain—without reference to Cluster B personality disorders—how Mr. Estrada expresses kindness in the following (real) terms he uses to describe people who want to protect children from harmful material in libraries:

- lying book banners
- angry anti-book activists who insult [board members] with zero care or empathy
- complete idiots
- dumb dorks
- terrible people

To be clear, using strong, even forceful language is not objectionable per se. (Although Mr. Estrada’s is often belligerent and frankly militaristic. In today’s climate, post-Charlie Kirk, parents have every right to raise an eyebrow.) What is worthy of critique—and yes, ridicule—is the utter lack of self-awareness in claiming his primary tactic is kindness, when it patently is not.

https://archive.ph/pEJCS#selection-427.0-427.142



NOTE DATED 2 AUGUST 2026:

The next day after I published the above I have published a new and related post:

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.



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: 




Friday, August 8, 2025

School Librarians Shape Young Minds with a Very Specific Worldview Leading to Tragedy

I just returned from the library, and I can’t even begin to describe the emotions surging through me. It’s a storm — anger, despair, disappointment, sadness, outrage, frustration — all at once.

I had gone there to pick up a book from the Simsbury High School summer reading list for English 10.1/10.2. My son had randomly selected a few titles, but most were already checked out, so I placed holds for us — and the first to become available was Someday by David Levithan.

After checking it out, I glanced at the cover. The tagline struck me immediately:
“Every day a new body. Every day a new life. Every day a new choice.”

Curious — and admittedly uneasy — I looked further. The story is about a character named “A,” a genderless being who wakes up in a different person’s body each day. The author, David Levithan, is also known for books like Two Boys Kissing and Boy Meets Boy — stories centering on themes of identity, gender, and s[*]xuality.

Something inside me recoiled. I asked my son to pick another book. I just couldn’t bring myself to let him read this — to me this looked like the intentional shaping of young minds with a very specific worldview. 

I tried reading Someday myself. Ten pages in, I had to stop. Not because I don’t enjoy reading — I absolutely do — but because this felt more like ideological grooming than literature. To give it a fair chance, I even asked Grok AI for a breakdown of the book. It listed some supposed benefits, like encouraging readers to “reconsider assumptions about gender” by exploring life through different bodies — male, female, nonbinary, unspecified.

But I can’t help but ask:
Is this really what will help my son develop strong reading comprehension? Will this improve his analytical skills, prepare him for college, give him insight into history, philosophy, literature, geography or human nature?
Or is it simply another nudge toward embracing a particular ideological agenda?

Why do I, as a parent, have to screen every single recommended book from a well-regarded public school — a school we pay high taxes to support — just to make sure it’s even appropriate?

When I was 15, I was an avid reader. I devoured books — Azerbaijani, Russian, American, European classics. No one had to check what I was reading, because our schools recommended works that built character, that inspired ambition, that taught us something enduring.
I grew up on Dickens, Dumas, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Charlotte Brontë, Jack London, Jules Verne — stories of human strength, moral struggle, discovery, and growth.

And now, in 2025, my son’s well-ranked Connecticut school recommends a book about a genderless being who lives in borrowed bodies.

Walking out of the teen section on the second floor of the Simsbury Public Library, I looked around. I’d seen it before, but today it hit differently. The “teen safe space” was draped in rainbow and transgender flags. A woman sat nearby, clearly signaling affiliation with the LGBTQ+ community. Librarians wore name tags with preferred pronouns prominently displayed. Posters announced “LGBTQ+ Teen Night” — every first Thursday of the month, ages 13-18, with free snacks, games, crafts, and community.

On the surface, it sounds innocent — welcoming, even. But something about it feels engineered, curated — like the goal isn’t connection but conversion. More and more, it seems that Simsbury High and Simsbury Public Library have become less about academic excellence and more about ideological celebration.

Instead of aiming for the best education, they’re drenched in rainbow-colored narratives, pushing teens deeper into identity confusion under the banner of inclusion.

And where does all this lead?

Sometimes — tragically — it ends the way it did for Ilene.
My daughter.
Who followed this very path of identity exploration and affirmation — only to end her life in the end.

Source of guest post:


Reprinted with the permission of the author.

Wow, Someday includes the "trans" main character k[*]lling people and enjoying it, then talking about dead bodies.  Can you believe that, given the tragedy that happened in the author's family?  Let me guess, librarians would say this is so "children can see themselves in the books on the shelves."
Sometimes — tragically — it ends the way it did for Ilene.
My daughter.
Who followed this very path of identity exploration and affirmation — only to end her life in the end.
I read the whole book. This book is the usual poor writing about political ideology and crushes, taking the place of good writing, like by "Dickens, Dumas, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Charlotte Brontë, Jack London, Jules Verne."  So kids are not only reading trash, but they aren't reading good books. It's a double negative.

Or as David Levithan put it in the book, as if reviewing his own book, "sh[*]t, I said."  It's "fifteen minutes of f[*]ck up time."  "It's all so predictable."

—
URL of this page: 

Monday, March 18, 2024

Moms Countersue School Librarian Roxana Caivano

COYLE & MORRIS LLP
201 Littleton Road, Suite 210
Morris Plains, NJ 07950
(973) 370-0592
jcoyle@coylemorris.com
John D. Coyle 029632001
Attorneys for Defendants
Christina S. Balestriere and Kristen Cobo

__________________________________________
ROXANA M. RUSSO CAIVANO, 
     Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS SERETIS, CHRISTINA
SCARBROUGH BALESTRIERE, KRISTEN
COBO, AND KATRINA ALBO, and/or 
JOHN DOE 1-5 (fictitious names), JANE DOE 
1-5 (fictitious names),

     Defendants, 

CHRISTINA SCARBROUGH 
BALESTRIERE and KRISTEN COBO,

     Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v.

ANTHONY P. CAIVANO,

     Third-Party Defendant.
__________________________________________


SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: MORRIS COUNTY

Docket No.: MRS-L-485-23 
Civil Action

ANSWER, COUNTER-CLAIM, THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT, DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY, and JURY DEMAND


Christina S. Balestriere (“Christina”) and Kristen Cobo (“Kristen”), by way of Answer to the Complaint of Roxana M. Russo Caivano, say:

FIRST COUNT

1. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs.

1

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 2 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
2. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs. 

3. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs. 

4. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs. 

5. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs. 

6. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs.

7. Denied.

8. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs.

9. Denied.

10. Denied.

11. Denied.

12. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs. 

13. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs.

SECOND COUNT

1. Christina and Kristen repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

2

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 3 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
2. Denied.

3. Denied.

4. Denied.

5. Denied.

6. Denied.

7. Denied.

8. Denied.

9. Denied.

THIRD COUNT

1. Christina and Kristen repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

2. Denied.

3. Denied.

4. Denied.

5. Denied.

6. Denied.

FOURTH COUNT

1. Christina and Kristen repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

2. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs.

3

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 4 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
3. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs.

4. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs.

FIFTH COUNT

1. Christina and Kristen repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

2. Denied.

3. Denied.

4. Denied.


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Second. Christina and Kristen assert their First Amendment right to freedom of speech regarding their opinions.

Third. Christina and Kristen assert their First Amendment right to petition the government for redress and the legal protections of their statements made pursuant thereto. 

Fourth. Christina and Kristen deny that any statements made were defamatory.

Fifth. Christina and Kristen are protected by the Fair Reporting Privilege.

Sixth. The statements made by Christina and Kristen were true and thus, not defamatory.

4

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 5 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
Seventh. The statements made by Christina and Kristen were substantially true, and thus, not defamatory.

Eighth. The statements made by Christina and Kristen were opinion, and thus, not defamatory.

Ninth. The statements made by Christina and Kristen are protected by qualified privileges.

Tenth. The statements made by Christina and Kristen were made in good faith. 

Eleventh. Plaintiff was not damaged by the statements made by Christina and Kristen. 

Twelfth. Plaintiff has received elevated status and not suffered any harm as a result of the statements from Christina and Kristen. https://youtu.be/i4pgUgEn99Y





Thirteenth. Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages under the claims asserted here. 

Fourteenth. Plaintiff was a public figure and thus, the statements made by Christina and Kristen are not actionable.

Fifteenth. Plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure, and thus, the statements made by Christina and Kristen are not actionable.

5

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 6 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
Sixteenth. The statements made by Christina and Kristen were made regarding a legitimate public concern.

Seventeenth. The statements made by Christina and Kristen were not made with actual malice.

Eighteenth. The statements made by Christina and Kristen were not made with reckless disregard for whether they were true or false.

     WHEREFORE HAVING FULLY ANSWERED, DEFENDANTS CHRISTINA. S. BALESTRIERE AND KRISTEN COBO DEMAND THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED AGAINST THEM WITH AN AWARD OF COSTS AND FEES.


JURY DEMAND

Christina and Kristen demand a trial by jury on all issues involved herein.


TRIAL COUNSEL DESIGNATION

Pursuant to Rule 4:25-4, John D. Coyle, Esq. is hereby designated as trial counsel in the within matter on behalf of responding defendants.


RULE 4:5-1 CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any other Court or of a pending arbitration proceeding, nor is it contemplated that the matter in controversy will be the subject of any other action or arbitration proceeding. I further certify that I am not presently aware of the identity of any other party whose joinder is required by law.

6

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 7 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 

RULE 1:38-7 CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that all confidential personal identifiers have been redacted and that subsequent papers submitted to the court will not contain confidential personal identifiers in accordance with the provisions of this rule.


COUNTER_CLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIM

Defendants/Counter-Claimants/Third-Party Plaintiffs Christina S. Balestriere and Kristen Cobo, by way of Counter-Claim against Plaintiff, and Third-Party Complaint against Anthony Caivano, hereby state:

1. Plaintiff Christina S. Balestriere grew up in West Orange, NJ and graduated from Mount Saint Dominic Academy. She went on to receive her Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology from Drew University and eventually her Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing for Teacher of Students with Disabilities from The College of Saint Elizabeth.

2. A former Catholic school Physical Education teacher and most recently a public school Special Education teacher, Christina moved with her family to Roxbury in 2014 and chose to stay home and raise her 3 young children. She is a member of St. Therese Church and an active member of the community with her children involved in multiple sports and activities.

3. Having 3 boys moving up through the public school system and having been an educator herself, Christina understands the importance of being involved in her children's education both present and future.

4. Plaintiff Kristen Cobo moved to Roxbury at age 6 and attended Roxbury schools from 1st grade, ultimately graduating from Roxbury High School in 2003. She went on to receive her Bachelor of Social Work degree at Ramapo College, receiving advanced standing in her major.

7

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 8 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
Kristen then attended Fordham University and received her Masters of Social Work degree with a specialization in children and families in just one year.

5. Kristen went on to receive her LCSW(Licensed Clinical Social Worker) and beyond that, a certificate in clinical supervision which enables her to supervise and train new therapists; a requirement prior to becoming licensed. She has worked in the mental health field for 18 years and has seen the detriments of adults who are unable to put the safety and wellbeing of children first. Kristen worked at St. Clare’s Children’s Crisis Unit, High Focus Centers Children’s Psych, and for Effective School solutions for 9 years at which time she was a direct clinician and ultimately a Regional Clinical Director overseeing the intensive clinical mental health services being provided to the most at risk students in school districts all over NJ.

6. She currently has her own private practice which she opened in 2022. In 2022, Kristen was appointed by the Roxbury school principal to her children’s school crisis response team, a volunteer position. She has been an active member at St. Therese RC Church in Succasunna for the last 31 years, attending church every Sunday with her family. Kristen currently resides with her husband of 10 years and two children. Kristen enjoys volunteering in the many activities in which her children participate, including Girls Scouts of America, CCD, coaching little league baseball and many other activities at her children’s school.

7. In or around August of 2022, Christina and Kristen became aware of three books that were in the Roxbury Public School library which is used by students as young as age 13.

8. Subsequently, Christina and Kristen learned that the books, “This Book is Gay,” “Lawn Boy,” “Gender Queer,” “Fun House,” and “All Boys Aren’t Blue” were in the library.

8

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 9 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
9. Christina and Kristen contacted Roxbury School Superintendent, Dr. Radulic, to advise her of the presence of these books as well as the explicitly sexually explicit illustrations in said books.

10. Dr. Radulic advised Defendants to contact the school librarian, Plaintiff Roxana Caivano, to raise their concerns.

11. On August 29th 2022, Dr. Loretta Radulic emailed Roxana Caivano explicitly requesting her to remove the books. “......I’m sure Dominick already shared with you that we will temporarily pull the books off the shelf and ask the parent to complete a ‘challenge ’form for review.”

12. On August 29, 2022, Roxana Caivano emailed Dr. Radulic back saying, “I thought we said this morning that I would respond to the parent with the draft I shared and add that I would put the books behind the desk and give them out upon request. I thought we were going to wait and see if this would appease her before we suggested the challenge form.”

13. Dr. Loretta Radulic emailed Caivano back and wrote, “Upon review with Dominick and Chuck and taking a look at the books, our directed [sic] changed a bit.”

14. Jonathan Evison, the author of Lawn Boy told the Washington Post that he “never meant for his book to be placed in school libraries.”

15. Jonathan Evison further told the Washington Post that Lawn Boy is “meant for adults.”

16. Jonathan Evison then added, “If schools want to offer the text, he said, they should restrict access to older students.”

17. On August 31, 2022, Defendant, Christina Balestriere, emailed Roxana Caivano, with her concerns that these books were available to all ages.

9

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 10 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
18. In response, on September 9, 2022, Roxana Caivano responded and confirmed that all three books are in fact in the Roxbury High School Public Library. She explicitly stated, “...yes, I have read them all myself.”

19. Roxana Caivano sends twitter messages under the Twitter handle, “Roxbury Media” using @roxburymedia.

20. On September 19, 2022, Roxana Caivano sent a tweet out explicitly recommending that readers read five books, including the three previously identified: “This Book is Gay,” “Lawn Boy,” “Gender Queer,” “Fun House,” and “All Boys Aren’t Blue.”



21. The purpose of display of books in a library is to draw attention to books and suggest they be read.

22. On or before September 19, 2022, Roxana Caivano created an “end cap” display for the library to promote and encourage children to read these 5 books and others.

23. This new library display from Roxana Caivano included other books, such as “Let’s Talk About It.”

10

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 11 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
24. Let’s Talk About It includes diagrams showing the following, labeled “Things to Try:”



25. Through the Twitter post and the library display, Roxana Caivano encouraged children as young as age 13 to read Let’s Talk About It, and thus, encouraged children as young as 13 to “have an assload of fun with a healthy helping of lube.”

26. Through the Twitter post and the library display, Roxana Caivano encouraged children as young as age 13 to read This Book Is Gay, and thus, encouraged children as young as 13 to learn how to access “Sex Apps” including Grindr.

11

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 12 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 



27. According to the Grindr terms of service, the app prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from accessing, directly or indirectly, viewing, downloading, or otherwise using Grindr services.

28. While the Grindr app is specifically identified in This Book is Gay, upon information and belief, the terms of service for all other sex apps prohibit use by minors.

29. Also, by encouraging children as young as 13 to read This Boy is Gay, Roxana Caivano encouraged them to learn such terms as:



30. Through the Twitter post and the library display, Roxana Caivano encouraged children as young as age 13 to read “Gender Queer.”

31. Amazon.com lists Gender Queer as appropriate for ages “18 years and up.”

12

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 13 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
32. Gender Queer includes illustrations where the under-age narrator fantasized about an adult man pulling the penis of a child as the child pulls the adult male to him.



33. Gender Queer also includes illustrations of a librarian “sexting” or sending and receiving sexual messages in a public library.



13

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 14 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 


34. As depicted in the illustration promoted by Roxana Caivano to children as young as 13, the librarian receives a message “I can’t wait to get your cock in my mouth—I’m going to give you the blow job of your life.”

35. Another illustration from the Gender Queer book promoted by Roxana Caivano to children as young as 13 depicts the acts from the librarian’s sexting from the prior panel.




14

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 15 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
36. Another of the books promoted by Roxana Caivano to children as young as 13 was Lawn Boy, which depicts various set acts involving children as young as ten:

“What if I told you I touched another guy’s dick?” I said. ...“What if I told you I sucked it?” ...“I was ten years old, but it’s true. I put Doug Goble’s dick in my mouth.”
...
“All I could think about while he was chatting me up over the rim of his cappuccino was his little salamander between my fourth-grade fingers, rapidly engorging with blood.”

37. In response, Christina and Kristen spoke at the Roxbury Board of Education meetings on September 19, 2022 where Kristen, a licensed clinical social worker, with a specialization in children and families from Fordham University, referenced legal prohibitions against displaying certain materials to children.

38. Kristen cited N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4B(5)(B). “Endangering the Welfare of a Child” which states that it is unlawful to knowingly view or possess any media, including video games, that depict a child engaged in a sexual act. The law applies to simulations and actual acts. It also states that exposing a minor to sexual activity in a manner that may debauch or impair his or her morals is a third-degree offense that carries a sentence of up to five years in prison. If the act is committed by a parent or by one who has authority over a child, the crime escalates into a second- degree offense.

39. Christina and/or Kristen attended the subsequent Board of Education meetings to repeatedly ask the school board to remove these sexually explicit materials from the library.

40. Roxana Caivano has refused to stop promoting those books, containing the passages outlined above, to children as young as 13, and continues to do so to this day.

15

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 16 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
41. As recently as May 19, 2023, she widely disseminated an email trying to rally
people to come to the May 23, 2023 Roxbury School Board meeting to “ show up in support so we can silence them” referring to Christina and Kristen.

42. At the School Board Meeting, after triumphantly raising her arms, Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano walked down the aisle yelling at parents and pointing at them, including Christina and Kristen.



43. Roxana Caivano even concluded by hitting the sign of a seated person exercising their First Amendment Rights to petition the government for redress.




Defamatory Statements

16

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 17 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
February 1, 2023 Posting

44. On February 1, 2023, Third-Party defendant Anthony “Tony” Caivano posted a message in a Facebook chat stating that his wife Roxana Caivano “has had multiple book challenges this year from a posse of book burners,” referring to Christina and Kristen.

45. The message was on a chat that was shared with multiple recipients from the conversation and was seen and commented on by others.

46. Anthony Caivano further stated, “We are going to defeat this reactionary bullshit.”

47. Anthony Caivano made those statements knowingly referring to Christina and Kristen.

48. Anthony Caivano made those statements with the intention that a reasonable person would understand them to refer to Christina and Kristen.

49. According to the United States Holocaust Museum(1):
Book burning has a long and dark history.
Book burning refers to the ritual destruction by fire of books or other written materials. Usually carried out in a public context, the burning of books represents an element of censorship and usually proceeds from a cultural, religious, or political opposition to the materials in question.
The burning of books under the Nazi regime on May 10, 1933, is perhaps the most famous book burning in history.

50. The term “book burners” as used by Anthony Caivano to refer to Christina and Kristen was a reference to the practice from Nazi Germany of burning books:
____________________
(1) https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/book-burning

17

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 18 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 



51. By referring to Christina and Kristen as “Book Burners,” Anthony Caivano intended for the readers of his message to associate Christina and Kristen with Nazis.

52. Anthony Caivano made these statements with the intention that a reasonable person would understand them to refer to Christina and Kristen.

53. Anthony Caivano made the statements about Christina and Kristen with knowledge that they were not Nazis or with reckless disregard for the truth that they were not Nazis.

February 1, 2023 Second Posting

54. On February 1, 2023, Roxana Caivano referred to parents who question these books as “fascists” on Tony Caivano’s public Facebook page.

55. Roxana Caivano made those statements knowingly referring to Christina and Kristen.

56. Roxana Caivano made those statements with the intention that a reasonable person would understand them to refer to Christina and Kristen.

57. By calling Christina and Kristen Book Burners and Fascists in a single chat, Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano worked together toward a single goal of having the readers identify Christina and Kristen as Nazis.

April 27, 2023 Interview

58. In a televised interview with ABC news on April 27, 2023, Roxana Caivano stated that the
parents she is suing, referring to Christina and Kristen, “called me a pornographer.”

18

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 19 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
59. Roxana Caivano knew that the statement that Christina and Kristen called her “a pornographer” was false, or with a reckless disregard for the truth of the statement.

60. Roxana Caivano knew that the April 27, 2023 interview would be broadcast, intended for it to be broadcast, and it was broadcast on television.

61. It also remains on the ABC7NY.com website as a streaming video clip today.

April 27, 2023 Postings

62. On April 27, 2023, in the Tap Into Roxbury public comments section, Anthony Caivano wrote “...no one has a right to call any librarian a criminal, a groomer or a pornographer, which is precisely what the Roxbury crew did to Roxana.”

63. Anthony Caivano made his statements knowing, or with a reckless disregard for the truth, that Christina and Kristen did not call Roxana Caivano a “criminal.”

64. Anthony Caivano made his statements knowing, or with a reckless disregard for the truth, that Christina and Kristen did not call Roxana Caivano a “pornographer.”

65. Anthony Caivano made his statements knowing, or with a reckless disregard for the truth, that Christina and Kristen did not call Roxana Caivano a “groomer.”

May 9, 2023 Interview

66. Roxana Caivano was interviewed for an article posted on NJ 101.5.

67. Roxana Caivano stated that Christina and Kristen objected to the books described above
“because of its LGBTQ content.”

68. Roxana Caivano knew, or had a reckless disregard for the truth, that Christina and Kristen objected to the books based on their sexual content, not because of the LGBTQ content.

19

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 20 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
May 25, 2023 NJ Spotlight News Q&A

69. Roxana Caivano was interviewed for the NJ Spotlight News Q&A article on or about May 24, 2023.

70. In the article posted at https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2023/05/q-a-roxana-russo- caivano-librarian-in-nj-book-ban-fight/, Roxana Caivano falsely stated that she was called vile names by members of the Roxbury community and that she has sued the group of parents.

71. Roxana Caivano made that statement knowing it would be publicized.

72. Roxana Caivano knew, or had a reckless disregard for the truth, that Christina and Kristen
did not call her “vile names.”

73. Roxana Caivano made that statement intending for others to understand it to be referring to Christina and Kristen.

74. It was reasonable for people reading the NJ Spotlight News online article to believe the Roxana Caivano was referring to Christina and Kristen.

75. Collectively the February 1, 2023 Posting, February 1, 2023 Second Posting, April 27, 2023 Interview, April 27, 2023 Postings, May 9, 2023 Interview, and May 25, 2023 NJ Spotlight News Q&A are referred to hereinafter as the Defamatory Statements.

FIRST COUNT

(Libel and Defamation)

76. Christina and Kristen repeat and reallege their allegations in the prior paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.

77. Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano made the Defamatory Statements as alleged facts regarding Christina and Kristen.

78. The Defamatory Statements were published to third persons orally and in writing.

20

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 21 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
79. Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano made the Defamatory Statements with negligent disregard for the truth of the statements.

80. Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano made the Defamatory Statements with careless disregard for the truth of the statements.

81. Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano made the Defamatory Statements with reckless disregard for the truth of the statements.

82. Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano made the Defamatory Statements intentionally knowing the statements were untrue.

83. Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano made the Defamatory Statements intending to cause harm to Christina and Kristen.

84. As a result, Christina and Kristen suffered harm to their reputation, standing, professional and personal capacity, and have been cast in a false light.

85. Kristen has had clients cancel her services as a result of the defamatory statements from Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano.

86. The Defamatory Statements were defamatory per se.

87. As a result, Christina and Kristen have been damaged.

     WHEREFORE, Christina and Kristen demand judgment against Roxana Caivano and
Anthony Caivano, individually, jointly, and severally, for compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, and costs of suit.

SECOND COUNT

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

88. Christina and Kristen repeat and reallege their allegations in the prior paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.

21

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 22 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
89. As a direct and proximate result of the Defamatory Statements, Christina and Kristen suffered and continued to suffer emotional distress.

90. As a result, Christina and Kristen suffered harm to their reputation, standing, professional and personal capacity, and have been cast in a false light.

91. Kristen has had clients cancel her services as a result of the defamatory statements from Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano.

92. As a result, Christina and Kristen were damaged.

     WHEREFORE, Christina and Kristen demand judgment against Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano, individually, jointly, and severally, for compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, and costs of 
suit.

DEMAND FOR ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 4:17-1, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Counter-Claimants Christina Balestriere and Kristen Cobo serve the following requests for answers to interrogatories with this pleading. Responses are due within the time calculated in Rule 4:17-4(b), 60 days after service of the summons and complaint:

1 Identify the “vile names” that you contend that Christina and Kristen called you and for each alleged occasion, set forth:

     a. Whether the statement was made in print or orally;

     b. The date and time of the utterance;

     c. The location of the utterance;

     d. All persons who were present when the statement was made or who heard the statement.

     e. If the statement was written, where the statement was printed and the location thereof.

2 Set forth all facts to support the statement that Christina and Kristen are “book burners.” 

22

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 23 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
3 Identify all instances when Christina and/or Kristen burned books and for each alleged occasion, set forth:

     a. The date and time of the book burning;

     b. The location of the book burning;

     c. All persons who were present when Christina and/or Kristen burned books.

     d. Identify any and all photographs, videos, or other media depictions of Christina and/or Kristen burning books.

4 Set forth all facts to support the statement that Christina and Kristen objected to the
books identified in the Counter-Claim and Third-Party Complaint “because of its LGBTQ content.”

5 For each for each alleged instance where Christina and Kristen objected because of the book’s LGBTQ content, set forth:

     a. Whether the statement was made in print or orally;

     b. The date and time of the utterance;

     c. The location of the utterance;

     d. All persons who were present when the statement was made or who heard the statement.

     e. If the statement was written, where the statement was printed and the location thereof.

6 Set forth all facts to support the statement that Christina and Kristen called Roxana a “pornographer” and for each alleged occasion, set forth:

     a. Whether the statement was made in print or orally;

     b. The date and time of the utterance;

     c. The location of the utterance;

     d. All persons who were present when the statement was made or who heard the statement.

     e. If the statement was written, where the statement was printed and the location thereof.

7 Set forth all facts to support the statement that Christina and Kristen called Roxana a “criminal” and for each alleged occasion, set forth:

23

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 24 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
     a. Whether the statement was made in print or orally;

     b. The date and time of the utterance;

     c. The location of the utterance;

     d. All persons who were present when the statement was made or who heard the statement.

     e. If the statement was written, where the statement was printed and the location thereof.

8 Set forth all facts to support the statement that Christina and Kristen called Roxana a “groomer” and for each alleged occasion, set forth:

     a. Whether the statement was made in print or orally;

     b. The date and time of the utterance;

     c. The location of the utterance;

     d. All persons who were present when the statement was made or who heard the statement.

     e. If the statement was written, where the statement was printed and the location thereof.

9 Identify and set forth the factual basis for your assertion in paragraph 3 of the Second Count of the Complaint that Christina and Kristen engaged in a civil conspiracy to jointly attack the plaintiff’s reputation, slander, and libel the plaintiff, defame the plaintiff, deprive the plaintiff of her constitutionally guaranteed rights.
    
10 Set forth the ways in which Roxana’s relationship with her employer has been impacted as set forth in paragraph 3 of the Second Count of the Complaint.

11 Set forth the emotional distress that Plaintiff alleges to have suffered as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

12 Set forth the physical manifestations of the emotional distress that Plaintiff alleges to have suffered as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

13 IdentifyallmedicalproviderswhoPlaintiffhastreatedwithasaresultoftheemotional distress that Plaintiff alleges to have suffered as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

     a. For each provider identified in the answers to the prior interrogatory, execute a HIPAA authorization for the release of medical records.

24

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 25 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
14 Set forth all damages alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff to her reputation as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

15 Set forth all damages alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff to her personal reputation as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

16 Set forth all damages alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff to her employment as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

17 Set forth all facts to support the allegations in the Fifth Count of the Complaint that Christina and Kristen engaged in “purposeful malicious conduct” to interfere with Plaintiff’s employment.

18 Set forth all facts to support the allegations in the Fifth Count of the Complaint that Christina and Kristen engaged in “purposeful malicious conduct” to interfere with Plaintiff’s prospective economic opportunities.

19 Identify any and all prospective economic opportunities that Plaintiff has lost as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

20 Identify any and all injuries that have been inflicted on Plaintiff as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

21 Identify all persons with relevant knowledge of the claims in the Complaint, or your affirmative defenses raised in response to this Counter-Claim and/or Third-Party Complaint and for each person identified, set forth:

     a. Their address and telephone number;

     b. The basis of their knowledge;

     c. A description of their knowledge.


DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Pursuant to Rule 4:18-1, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Counter-Claimants
Christina Balestriere and Kristen Cobo serve the following requests for the production of documents with this Complaint. Responses are due within the time calculated in Rule 4:18- 1(b)(2), 50 days after service of this pleading:

25

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 26 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
     1 Produce a copy of all documents sufficient to identify when the book “Gender Queer” was purchased for the Roxbury Library.

     2 Produce a copy of all documents identified or referenced in your answers to interrogatories.

Dated: May 31, 2023
COYLE & MORRIS LLP
s/ John D. Coyle
John D. Coyle
Attorney ID: 029632001
201 Littleton Road, Suite 210 
Morris Plains, NJ 07950
(973) 370-3519 
jcoyle@coylemorris.com 
Attorneys for Defendants/Counter- 
Claimants/Third-Party Plaintiffs 
Christina Scarbrough Balestriere 
and Kristen Cobo

26

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
Civil Case Information Statement

Case Details: MORRIS | Civil Part Docket# L-000485-23

Case Caption: RUSSO CAIVANO ROXANA VS SERETIS THOMAS
Case Initiation Date: 03/17/2023
Attorney Name: RONALD T NAGLE
Firm Name: RONALD T. NAGLE, PC 
Address: 52 SOUTH STREET 
MORRISTOWN NJ 079600000 
Phone: 9732676780
Name of Party: PLAINTIFF : BALESTRIERE, CHRISTINA, S 
Name of Defendant’s Primary Insurance Company
(if known): None
Case Type: DEFAMATION
Document Type: Answer W/Jury Demand
Jury Demand: YES - 6 JURORS
Is this a professional malpractice case? NO
Related cases pending: NO
If yes, list docket numbers:
Do you anticipate adding any parties (arising out of same transaction or occurrence)? NO
Does this case involve claims related to COVID-19? NO
Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: ROXANA M RUSSO CAIVANO? NO
Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: CHRISTINA S BALESTRIERE? NO
Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: KRISTEN COBO? NO
 
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE
CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION
Do parties have a current, past, or recurrent relationship? NO
If yes, is that relationship:
Does the statute governing this case provide for payment of fees by the losing party? NO
Use this space to alert the court to any special case characteristics that may warrant individual management or accelerated disposition:

Do you or your client need any disability accommodations? NO 
If yes, please identify the requested accommodation:

Will an interpreter be needed? NO If yes, for what language:

Please check off each applicable category: Putative Class Action? NO Title 59? NO Consumer Fraud? NO

I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b)

MRS--L--000485--23 08//02//20232::48::4379PM Pg 2 of 2 TTrarnasnsIDID: L: CLCVV20220322323293895855

08/02/2023 
Dated

/s/ RONALD T NAGLE
Signed


—
URL of this page: 


Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org