by P.D. Lesko
In 1961, Patsy Cline sang her classic “Crazy.”
In October 2024, Greenhills School Principal Peter Fayroian sued the A2Indy and me for defamation 19 hours after I published “Greenhills Head of School Accused of Sexual Abuse.” He didn’t ask for any corrections or demand a retraction. He refused to comment, when asked. Fayroian, who earns over $700,000 per year, filed a SLAPP suit to punish the A2Indy and me for publishing public records. Then, during Discovery, Fayroian demanded to know the identity of the confidential source who’d pointed me to public court records which contained allegations that he had sexually abused a child. Circuit Court Judge Julia B. Owdziej ordered that I tell Fayroian the person’s name. I did not, and the Judge fined me $500. Meanwhile, confidential source John Doe filed a Motion to ask that his identity remain anonymous. Judge Owdziej ruled against him. The Court of Appeals ruled against John Doe 2-1. Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. This week, Fayroian demanded I publicly acknowledge that Judge Tracy E. Van den Bergh may have been biased when deciding an ex parte Motion filed by his ex-wife in response to an allegation of child sexual abuse made against him. He also demanded I reveal the identity of John Doe, an attempt to circumvent an Order of the Michigan Supreme Court.
And this man has been given control by the Greenhills School Board of Directors over the lives of hundreds of children enrolled at that private school.
Prosecutor Eli Savit declined to prosecute Fayroian in Aug. 2024, and the Greenhills School Principal was never charged with any crime. In May 2025, Savit announced his candidacy for Michigan AG. A 60-page AAPD report shows, based on interviews (including with a lawyered up Fayroian) and investigation, the agency asked the Prosecutor for charges of Second-Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct, a felony punishable by 15 years in prison.
Readers may have noticed that I removed all of the articles written over the past two years reporting on the progress of the libel suit. I did so voluntarily in an effort to settle the suit (one of Fayroian’s demands). No judge or jury can ever order that I do so, because prior restraint of the media by the government (a court, for example) is unconstitutional. Not to mention the fact that Peter Fayroian sued in October 2024 over the publication of “Greenhills Head of School Accused of Sexual Abuse”.
Readers will note that all of the articles have been restored. Why I did so should be obvious.
I interviewed lawyer/social worker Tracy Van den Bergh when she ran (and lost) for probate judge in 2014. Judge Van den Bergh was subsequently elected in 2020 and is presently running for re-election. I have written about her courtroom, her rulings and reversals of her rulings by the Michigan Court of Appeals. Some of my reporting has been critical, but her deep devotion to the community was clear to me when we spoke in 2014, and remains so.
Peter Fayroian’s demand that I publicly disparage Judge Van den Bergh by acknowledging she may have exhibited potential bias against him in 2024 by granting an ex parte order to protect his children when an allegation of sexual abuse was made to her, is a demand to which I will never accede. Fayroian’s demand that I do so was supported by his “reasoning” that Judge Van den Bergh granted the 2024 ex parte order because she had a “prior relationship” with Greenhills.
I have a video of the hearing where the Judge acknowledged that her child had attended Greenhills. At that hearing, Fayroian, his ex-wife and their lawyers were present. Judge Van den Bergh said she didn’t believe the fact that her child attended Greenhills would impact her ability to be impartial. Fayroian said nothing. His ex-wife said nothing. Their attorneys said nothing. The Court’s Register of Actions shows neither party filed a Motion asking that Judge Van den Bergh recuse herself, giving as the reason a prior relationship with Greenhills. Alas, Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission filings are not public, and certainly Fayroian and/or his ex-wife could have filed a complaint against Judge Van den Bergh. If a complaint had been filed, the Judge was not disciplined, according to MJTC public records.
To demand now, two years later, that I acknowledge a sitting Circuit Judge may have exhibited potential bias against Peter Fayroian in her ruling in response to an ex parte Motion which included an allegation of child sexual abuse, might be comical or ludicrous. However, I’m mindful of the fact this man can call any child enrolled, or adult employed at Greenhills, into his office and demand they acknowledge pretty much any notion that’s floating around in Fayroian’s head at any given moment on any given day. After all, in the 160-page response to the 2024 ex parte Motion in which the allegation of child sexual abuse was made to Judge Van den Bergh, are letters of character from his own Greenhills staff members praising Fayroian.
It should be noted that public records show since the AAPD asked the Prosecutor to levy CSC 2 charges against the educator, Peter Fayroian’s salary at Greenhills was increased by the Board from $560,000 to over $700,000. Does it surprise me Peter Fayroian wants me (among other demands) to admit in public that Judge Van den Bergh may have done him wrong, because she had a prior relationship with Greenhills? Nope. Honestly, I’d like to email Judge Van den Bergh and ask her for a comment. What could have happened to her and/or her daughter at Greenhills during that “prior relationship” that would have made her violate her judicial oath and judicial canons in order to screw over poor—well, rich—Peter Fayroian? As Patsy Cline sang in 1962, “I Can Only Imagine.”
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.