Connect with us

Breaking News

Monopoly in Police Psychological Evaluations in New Jersey: Potential Conflicts and Concerns

Published

on

In New Jersey, the Institute for Forensic Psychology (IFP) has established itself as the dominant provider of psychological evaluations for law enforcement agencies. Founded in 1972, IFP has assessed over 100,000 individuals from more than 700 agencies, including most of New Jersey’s police departments. Its services include pre-employment evaluations, fitness-for-duty assessments, and promotional evaluations, making it a central player in the hiring and evaluation of law enforcement officers across the state. Dr. Lewis Schlosser, the chief psychologist at IFP, leads these evaluations.

The reliance on a single institution for such a critical function raises concerns over a potential conflict of interest. When one entity is responsible for evaluating the majority of law enforcement candidates in the state—and is being compensated by the departments it serves—questions naturally arise about the objectivity and accuracy of these assessments. Moreover, the impact of these evaluations extends beyond hiring decisions; they influence the overall quality and integrity of police forces throughout New Jersey.

Concerns Over Potential Conflicts of Interest

The exclusive use of IFP by most New Jersey police departments creates a scenario where an unchecked monopoly could lead to flawed hiring decisions. Psychological evaluations are intended to identify candidates who possess the mental and emotional stability required for the pressures of law enforcement. However, numerous reports suggest that the evaluations conducted by IFP may not be fulfilling that role effectively.

Candidates who are otherwise highly qualified—having passed physical, academic, and background requirements—have been disqualified solely due to negative psychological evaluations by IFP. In contrast, officers who successfully passed IFP’s evaluations have faced disciplinary actions, suspensions, and even terminations within their first few years of service. This raises fundamental questions about the accuracy and predictive value of these evaluations.

Incidents Highlighting Evaluation Accuracy

Several troubling patterns have emerged, suggesting that IFP’s evaluations may not accurately assess a candidate’s fitness for duty:

• Reports indicate that some officers who have been terminated for misconduct or incompetence had previously received positive psychological evaluations from IFP.

• Conversely, candidates who were rejected based on IFP’s findings have sought independent psychological evaluations that directly contradicted the institute’s conclusions, indicating possible flaws in the evaluation criteria or methodology.

• Multiple sources, including police union representatives and attorneys who handle civil service appeals, have described cases where candidates were mislabeled or miscategorized by IFP’s evaluations, despite having no history of psychological instability or behavioral issues.

Appeal Process and Legal Framework

In New Jersey, candidates who are disqualified from police service based on psychological evaluations have the right to appeal under the state’s Civil Service Act. The appeal process allows candidates to challenge disqualification decisions by presenting evidence, including independent psychological evaluations.

The New Jersey Civil Service Commission has, in some cases, reversed disqualifications after reviewing independent evaluations that contradicted IFP’s findings. This suggests that IFP’s evaluations may not always reflect a candidate’s true psychological fitness. For example:

• In the Matter of L.C. – A candidate for the New Jersey State Police was disqualified based on IFP’s evaluation. However, an independent psychologist’s report concluded that L.C. was fit for duty. The Civil Service Commission overturned the disqualification, citing insufficient evidence to support IFP’s conclusions.

• In the Matter of R.B. – After being disqualified due to psychological unfitness, R.B. obtained a contradictory independent evaluation and successfully appealed the decision, with the Civil Service Commission ruling that IFP’s conclusions lacked sufficient basis.

These cases underscore the subjectivity involved in psychological assessments and the importance of an independent review process to safeguard against flawed evaluations.

Theoretical Nature of Psychological Assessments

Psychology, as a field, is inherently more theoretical than empirical. While psychological evaluations are based on standardized tests and professional guidelines, the interpretation of results can vary significantly between evaluators. Personality traits, stress responses, and emotional stability are complex factors that cannot always be measured with clinical precision.

The subjective nature of psychological assessments means that two qualified psychologists could arrive at different conclusions about the same candidate. This raises a fundamental question: if psychology cannot provide a definitive answer about a candidate’s fitness for law enforcement, why should one institution have such significant influence over hiring decisions?

Recommendations for Ensuring Fairness and Accuracy

To address these concerns, several measures should be considered:

1. Diversify Evaluation Providers – Introducing multiple independent psychological assessment providers would create competition and reduce the potential for bias or conflicts of interest.

2. Implement Oversight Mechanisms – Establishing an independent state-level oversight body to review the consistency and accuracy of psychological evaluations would provide greater accountability.

3. Standardize Evaluation Criteria – Creating uniform guidelines for psychological evaluations across all police departments would reduce the variability in assessments and ensure consistency in hiring decisions.

4. Enhance the Appeals Process – Strengthening the civil service appeals process to allow for more thorough reviews of psychological disqualifications would help protect qualified candidates from unjust rejections.

Conclusion

The current monopoly held by the Institute for Forensic Psychology over police psychological evaluations in New Jersey presents serious concerns about fairness, accuracy, and accountability. When one institution controls such a critical aspect of law enforcement hiring, the risks of bias, flawed evaluations, and wrongful disqualifications increase. Introducing competition, enhancing oversight, and improving transparency in the evaluation process would help ensure that only the most qualified and capable candidates become police officers, thereby strengthening the integrity and professionalism of New Jersey’s law enforcement agencies.


Discover more from HUDTRUTH

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Breaking News

🚨 BREAKING NEWS: MAYOR BRIAN STACK CAUGHT INTIMIDATING SCHOOL EMPLOYEES IN SHOCKING POWER GRAB — WHISTLEBLOWERS EXPOSE CORRUPTION AT UNION CITY BOE! 🚨

Published

on

Union City, NJ — June 7, 2025

A huge scandal has erupted in Union City, NJ after a letter signed by Mayor and State Senator Brian Stack was leaked by whistleblowers to Independent Investigative Journalist Leroy Truth of the Facebook and YouTube Channels Leroy Truth Investigations — and it’s sparking extreme outrage.

We just learned that dozens of Union City, New Jersey teachers and staff have been reaching out to Leroy Truth nonstop over the past several hours enraged as they are demanding the immediate resignations and an immediate criminal investigation into:

Mayor and New Jersey State Senator and Head of the New Jersey State Judiciary Committee Brian Stack, the entire Union City Board of Education including President of the Board of Education Ydalia Genao, and Union City, New Jersey School Superintendent Sylvia Abbato among others.

They are also demanding an immediate investigation over Stack’s years-long allegations of extreme corruption as well additional scrutiny on Mayor and Senator Brian Stacks’ concrete grip and control on Hudson County politics.

The letter, printed on official City of Union City letterhead, paid for by “Union City First”, was mailed to the private home addresses of Union City Board of Education employees. It wasn’t about city policy. It wasn’t even from their employer, the BOE. Instead, it was a blatant political pressure campaign:

Please speak to your family and friends about the importance of voting for the candidates who will help us continue to succeed,” Stack wrote.

These Board of Education employees don’t even report to Stack. So why is he sending political letters to their homes?

That’s the question at the heart of this controversy — and it’s exposing serious cracks in the firewall that should exist between municipal government and public education.

🔥 “Why is the Mayor Sticking His Nose Where It Doesn’t Belong?”

Stack’s letter raises eyebrows by making direct appeals on school-related issues — including Board of Education funding — despite the fact that the Board of Education is an autonomous entity, with its own trustees, its own superintendent, and its own officials.

Yet Stack wrote:

As the election approaches, I ask for your help in protecting what we have worked so hard to achieve.

That’s not his job. Mayors in New Jersey have no authority over BOE funding, and Stack knows this. The trustees of the Board — the very people he helped install — are supposed to represent the district and advocate for the resources they need.

So why is the Mayor acting like a middleman for the school board? The answer is clear: control. Stack has turned the Union City BOE into a political extension of his machine. Instead of an independent board working for students and parents, it has become a tool of his political empire.

🧨 Whistleblowers Step Forward: “We’ve Had Enough”

This letter didn’t stay quiet. Multiple employees at the Union City Board of Education — risking retaliation — leaked it to investigative journalist Leroy Truth, who confirmed its authenticity. Sources say this letter is just one of many examples of Stack using his position to manipulate public employees into supporting his preferred candidates.

One whistleblower told Leroy:

“This isn’t support — it’s coercion. We’re being told who to vote for, and it’s not okay.”

The use of public resources — including potentially misusing public employee contact information — is now under scrutiny. The letter did not include any campaign disclaimer or come from a political campaign other than paid for by Union City First. Instead, it carried the official letter head of “from the desk of Brian P. Stack, Mayor of Union City”, and was signed by the Mayor in his public capacity, not as a private citizen.

📬 Misuse of Employee Information?

Sources close to the Union City BOE confirmed that thousands of public school employees — including non-political staff — received the letter, despite never having shared their home addresses with Stack’s political operation.

One whistleblower told Leroy Truth, the independent journalist who broke the story:

We’ve never given our addresses to Stack or his campaign. We don’t even work for the city. How did he get this information? Why is the mayor writing to us like we’re his employees?”

According to the Union City Board of Education’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, employee information — including home addresses — is not public record and cannot be shared outside specific legal exceptions. The relevant section (Article 6, P.2.E.) clearly states:

“The home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, date of birth… are not government records and are exempt from any disclosure requirements…”

If Stack obtained this data through the BOE or any government resource, it could constitute a violation of state privacy and election laws.

📢 Hypocrisy and Fear: The Stack Playbook

In his letter, Stack tries to play the victim, writing:

“The election cycle for the June Primary has been contentious and often hostile. My political opponents continue to spread lies and launch personal attacks that are aimed at hurting my family and me.”

“These same attacks are indicative of the true intentions of the political party bosses who continue to try to hurt our community for their own political gain.”

Let’s be clear: the only “political machine and party boss” here is the one run by Brian Stack himself.

He’s the one holding two powerful offices — mayor and senator — and still not content to let candidates speak for themselves. Now he’s crying foul over criticism, even as he inserts himself into races where he’s not on the ballot, all while targeting school employees who don’t answer to him.

But that’s the cost of politics — especially when you make yourself the face of someone else’s campaign and bring your own family into the political spotlight. Stack can’t have it both ways. If he wanted to stay above the fray, he should have stayed out of it. Instead, he’s weaponizing public institutions for his own gain, then crying when called out.

🏛️ The Bigger Problem: A Compromised School Board

The silence from the current Union City Board of Education trustees is deafening. These individuals are supposed to protect the integrity and independence of the school system, not serve as foot soldiers in Stack’s political machine. By allowing this level of interference and intimidation to occur, they have shown themselves to be political lackeys — not public servants.

Adding to the growing outrage, Marco Navarro — a current Board of Education trustee, city employee, and Republican candidate for the New Jersey State Assembly in District 37 — confirmed that he personally received one of the political letters at his home. “This is beyond unethical,” Navarro said. “As both an employee and an elected trustee, I find it deeply troubling that our personal information is being used to send political propaganda from our employer. This crosses the line between governance and coercion. I don’t even live in the district currently to be receiving this letter!” Navarro, who has been outspoken about the need for term limits and greater separation between local government and school boards, called the move “an outrageous abuse of power and a perfect example of why the political machine of Brian Stack in Hudson County must be dismantled.”

🚨 What Happens Now?

This explosive situation is now too big to ignore. The following questions demand answers:

Who provided the private home addresses of school employees to a political actor? Why is the Mayor acting on behalf of the Board of Education without authority? What legal boundaries have been crossed by using city resources for political campaigning?

📞 If You Have Information

If you received this letter or have evidence of political coercion at the Union City Board of Education, contact:

The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, The FBI Public Corruption Division, and Investigative journalist Leroy Truth

Whistleblowers are stepping up — and this is only the beginning. The wall of silence is crumbling. The people of Union City and New Jersey deserve better than a political system built on fear, manipulation, and unchecked power.

The truth is coming out. And Brian Stack can’t run from it anymore.


Discover more from HUDTRUTH

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Breaking News

Veteran Teacher Speaks Out: Ann Marie Pocklembo Alleges Assault by Edison Mayor

Published

on

Edison, NJ (June 6, 2025) — Ann Marie Pocklembo, a respected educator with 32 years of service, has publicly accused Edison Township’s Mayor Samip Joshi of sexually assaulting her in June 2020. Her detailed account, presented in a letter to her fellow residents, has ignited fresh scrutiny amid ongoing local elections and questions surrounding accountability from elected officials. 

A Trusted Friendship Turns Traumatic

Pocklembo describes forging an online connection with Joshi during the early days of the COVID‑19 pandemic, when he held the position of Vice President of the Edison Council. She felt a sense of trust in him as an elected leader offering guidance during the lockdown. 

In June 2020, as restrictions eased, Pocklembo accepted Joshi’s invitation to his home for what was framed as a casual social engagement. She recalls being served mixed drinks and becoming violently ill—so incapacitated she couldn’t drive home. Instead of helping her, Pocklembo says Joshi sexually assaulted her, taking advantage of her vulnerable state. Since then, she has endured both physical complications requiring medical intervention and deep emotional distress. 

The Fallout: Seeking Answers and Facing Denial

Following the incident, Pocklembo reported it to the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office, but alleges she was blocked from accessing the final investigative report. Her OPRA request to see an incident report related to retaliation at her home was denied. Despite the reported investigation closing in September 2022, officials concluded Joshi’s conduct did not violate the law. 

Moreover, Pocklembo attempted privately on several occasions to seek clarity and apology from Joshi—none were acknowledged. Meanwhile, Joshi ascended to the mayoralty and currently serves as public safety director, raising profound concerns for Pocklembo about public trust and the safety of residents under his leadership. 

Public and Political Reactions

In her letter dated May 26, 2025, Pocklembo urges residents to recognize her as more than a figure in a political campaign—equating her experience with what any daughter, mother, or wife might endure. She announced her intention was not motivated by politics but by the imperative of truth and accountability, emphasizing the emotional toll of encountering campaign signs such as “Women for Joshi” that she believes undermine her allegations. 

In response, former Councilwoman and mayoral candidate Joyce Ship‑Freeman expressed deep support. “My heart broke reading Ann Marie’s letter… No woman should go through the trauma she describes. I stand with her,” she wrote, condemning Joshi’s actions and demanding accountability. 

Prosecutor’s Office and Political Implications

In a letter dated January 9, 2025, Middlesex County Prosecutor Yolanda Ciccone informed attorney Richard Flaum that a thorough investigation concluded with no criminal charges against Joshi and the closure of the file in September 2022. 

However, Pocklembo’s detailed account and claims about retaliation have renewed calls for transparency. Residents and voter blocs are increasingly demanding that Joshi address the allegations directly.

What’s Ahead

Public Response from the Mayor: To date, Mayor Joshi’s office and Chief of Staff Bob Diehl have not responded to multiple requests for comment or clarification on Pocklembo’s allegations. Legal Review Possibilities: The reopening of the case has not been confirmed. Yet, Pocklembo’s detailed narrative and public support may prompt renewed legal or administrative review. Electoral Impact: With municipal elections approaching, this revelation could significantly influence voter sentiment and campaign dynamics.

Why It Matters

This story extends beyond one individual—it’s a profound reminder of a community’s responsibility to listen, validate, and adapt. As a long‑standing educator and leader in Edison, Pocklembo’s decision to share her story reflects the courage survivors often summon in the face of overwhelming adversity.

Conclusion:

Ann Marie Pocklembo’s public disclosure forces a reckoning in Edison about leadership, accountability, and the enduring impact of trauma. Regardless of legal outcomes, this narrative challenges the township: How will it ensure safety, integrity, and trust for all residents—especially those who suffer in silence?


Discover more from HUDTRUTH

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Breaking News

 INVESTIGATIVE REPORT: BRIAN STACK’S PAY-TO-PLAY POLITICS EXPOSED — WHISTLEBLOWER REVEALS COERCION, CAMPAIGN LOAN SCHEME INVOLVING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES & BANKERS

Published

on

A decades-old scandal surrounding Union City Mayor and State Senator Brian Stack is coming back under intense scrutiny — and this time, a new whistleblower has come forward with explosive allegations that could blow the lid off one of New Jersey’s most egregious examples of political corruption and abuse of power.

According to a 2003 Star-Ledger investigation, Brian Stack raised more than $200,000 for his state Senate campaign through a highly unusual and ethically questionable system of personal loans taken out by his own supporters — many of whom were public employees who depended on him for their jobs.

Now, over two decades later, we’ve received a firsthand account from an individual who claims to have been present at the very meeting where the scheme was orchestrated — and what they describe is not merely unethical, but downright coercive and potentially criminal.

🔥 WHISTLEBLOWER REVEALS STACK COORDINATED CAMPAIGN LOANS IN CLOSED-DOOR MEETING WITH BANKERS

In an anonymous tip to our newsroom, a source who claims to have been inside the May 2003 emergency meeting detailed a scenario far more disturbing than what was originally reported.

“I was there,” the source stated. “Brian Stack called in his supporters — most of us worked for the city in some capacity. There were bankers in the room, actual loan officers. Stack stood in front of everyone and pressured us to fill out loan applications right there on the spot, so we could turn over the money to his campaign.”

The whistleblower described a room full of city employees, some visibly uncomfortable, as the mayor and Senate candidate pushed for thousands of dollars in personal loans to be immediately funneled into his political operation. According to the source, it was clear that refusing to cooperate could result in retaliation or loss of employment.

“He didn’t even try to hide it. It was clear that if you didn’t play along, your job was on the line,” the source added.

💰 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES USED AS POLITICAL ATM

The Star-Ledger piece already made waves when it revealed that Stack’s campaign was bankrolled by loans taken out in the names of school administrators, police officers, and other Union City employees. This included then–school superintendent Stanley Sanger, who reported giving hundreds to Stack’s campaign after taking out a loan — despite being a direct beneficiary of Stack’s appointment power.

This kind of transactional political machine — where jobs, promotions, and security are linked to campaign contributions — is a textbook example of pay-to-play politics and government corruption.

The article quoted Joseph Lauro, a spokesman for the Union City Board of Education, who casually admitted, “He’s always supported Brian, and that’s where this is coming from.” That’s not a defense — that’s a confession of patronage politics at its worst.

🧨 CAMPAIGN FINANCE LOOPHOLE OR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY?

Stack’s campaign tried to claim that these were voluntary loans and not direct donations — therefore bypassing state campaign finance limits. But this legalistic dodge does not change the ethical reality: Stack’s political machine exploited city workers and strong-armed them into taking on personal debt to fund his rise to power.

The new eyewitness testimony strongly suggests that this was not merely voluntary but coordinated, directed, and pressured — with direct involvement from financial institutions. That moves this scheme out of the realm of clever loopholes and into potential criminal conspiracy territory.

If verified, these claims could expose Stack and his enablers to serious legal jeopardy.

🏛️ THIS ISN’T JUST LOCAL — STACK NOW CHAIRS THE STATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Let’s be clear: This is not just a Union City scandal.

Brian Stack is no longer just the mayor — he’s a powerful state senator and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That means he oversees nominations for judges, reviews ethics legislation, and is responsible for helping shape the very laws that are supposed to prevent this kind of abuse.

How can a man with this kind of alleged history of coercion, intimidation, and dirty fundraising tactics be trusted to serve as a gatekeeper of justice in New Jersey?

📞 THE PEOPLE DESERVE ANSWERS — AND ACTION

We call on the following authorities to investigate these revelations:

New Jersey Attorney General’s Office Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) Senate Ethics Committee

The people of New Jersey deserve a government that is transparent, ethical, and accountable — not a political mafia disguised as public service.

It’s time to ask: How many more jobs were traded for dollars? How many more public servants were forced into debt to keep their positions? And how much longer will New Jersey tolerate corruption at the top?

If you or someone you know was present at this meeting, or has information related to this scheme, please contact the Attorney General’s office at (609) 984-6500 or the FBI tip line at 1-800-CALL-FBI.

This is no longer speculation. This is a pattern. This is abuse. This is Brian Stack’s legacy — and it must be stopped.


Discover more from HUDTRUTH

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025 Leroy Truth Investigations