by P.D. Lesko
On Nov. 3, 2026, Peter Fayroian, principal of Greenhills School, petitioned the Circuit Court for an emergency ex parte temporary restraining order which asks Judge Julia B. Owdziej for the take down of “Greenhills Principal Demands Public Acknowledgement Circuit Court Judge Van den Bergh May Have Been Biased While Hearing His 2024 Custody Dispute.” In the Motion Fayroian claims, “Peter, his employer, and the minor children are at risk of irreparable emotional, reputational, and fiscal damage caused by the Defendants’ continued publications.”
In 2024, shortly after I published “Greenhills Head of School Accused of Sexual Abuse,” Andrew Bossory of Joshi Law, on behalf of his client Peter Fayroian, filed an emergency ex parte Motion which asked Circuit Court Judge Julia B. Owdziej to order that I take down the investigative article. She did not grant the Motion, because to have done so would have been unconstitutional, as per the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1931 decision in Neer v Minnesota. The U.S. Supremes weighed in again on the side of free speech in 1971 in the landmark New York Times Co. v. United States, a ruling that facilitated the publication of the Pentagon papers.
Fayroian’s Motion acknowledges that, “…a litigant seeking a prior restraint on speech, i.e., a ‘gag order,’ must overcome a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality.” That fact being duly acknowledged, Peter Fayroian needs to stretch out on a fainting sofa, put a cool cloth on his forehead and read up on the Streisand Effect. It’s the phenomenon in which an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information results in the unintended consequence of the effort instead increasing public awareness of the information.
On Oct. 28, 2026 the Greenhills principal demanded, in writing, that I publicly disparage Judge Tracy Van den Bergh on his behalf. As his rationale, Fayroian said the Judge may have been biased in her rulings in his 2024 custody dispute. If Fayroian had evidence that Judge Van den Bergh was biased or had misinterpreted the law, he was free to appeal her rulings and/or complain to the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission. Instead, two years later he demanded I publish to the Ann Arbor Independent website that Judge Van den Bergh done him wrong. In my opinion, Peter Fayroian’s demand was disturbing and dangerous. I wrote about the demand and made it clear I would never accede to it.
After his most recent effort to ask a court to stifle my free speech, I’ve begun to imagine Peter Fayroian parading around his office in an ermine robe and a crown, cradling a scepter. He’s King George III from the musical “Hamilton,” who views the free speech of his “sweet submissive subjects” through a theatrical, unhinged lens. The King sings, “Oceans rise, empires fall….When push comes to shove, I’ll send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love. I will fight the fight and win the war….When push comes to shove, I will kill your friends and family to remind you of my love.”
In her three-page opinion denying Fayroian’s 2024 request she seal his custody dispute records on which I reported in “Greenhills Head of School Accused of Sexual Abuse,” Judge Van den Bergh wrote the A2Indy’s reporting was in the public interest. Judge Van den Bergh added in her opinion that Fayroian was more concerned with his personal reputation than with the well-being of his children. Ouch.
In his Nov. 3 Motion, for good measure Fayroian added, “Absent an order directing the Defendants to remove this article [“Greenhills Principal Demands Public Acknowledgement Circuit Court Judge Van den Bergh May Have Been Biased While Hearing His 2024 Custody Dispute“] and a restraint against further publications, this case will never end.” Is Fayroian threatening the Judge with his perpetual whining and whinging? Not legal reasons for any judge to stifle free speech, according to the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings on the First Amendment. Let’s be clear: Peter Fayroian is the plaintiff. He could end his SLAPP suit tomorrow. I, however, am not responsible when he makes unconstitutional, dangerous and, frankly, stupid demands. Neither can I protect him from his own petty, vindictive instincts. That is his job—a job at which Peter Fayroian is failing miserably.
My job is to report and opine for the people who read the Ann Arbor Independent. A reader, a former Greenhills parent, responded to the Oct. 29 piece. The reader said: “I greatly value a free press. Like Due Process, it’s pretty important to all of us. He [Fayroian] got his Due Process. His family got theirs. You are doing your job and you are free to do it…I wish you the best and appreciate your role.”
On Greenhills School’s most recent federal income tax return, Peter B. Fayroian is listed as the Principal Officer. The mission of that school as presented to the IRS includes the following: “GREENHILLS SCHOOL IS A COMMUNITY THAT HELPS YOUNG PEOPLE REALIZE THEIR FULL…ETHICAL…POTENTIAL IN PREPARATION FOR COLLEGE AND BEYOND AS CURIOUS, CREATIVE, AND RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS WHO RESPECT ALL INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR DIFFERENCES.” Peter Fayroian has twice in as many years abused the court system to demand free speech be censored. At this point, I don’t think the Greenhills principal should impart lessons in spreading butter on bread, ethics or respect to anyone.
In March 2026, a student columnist writing in the Greenhills student newspaper, the Alcove, penned an opinion piece that tackles the question of what it means to be a leader. The student hit a bullseye: “When I think of leadership, I think of setting an example, giving advice, and showing responsibility.” Showing responsibility. Amen. Sometimes, kids say the darndest things.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.