A new harassment complaint filed against independent journalist, Leonard Filipowski, known online as Leroy Truth, is now moving through Secaucus Municipal Court after being transferred from Union City. The charge is harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a) — a statute that covers certain communications made with the purpose to harass.

But based on the complaint paperwork, incident report, and supporting materials reviewed here, the case appears to be built almost entirely on public criticism of a police sergeant and other public officials, raising major legal questions about whether the complaint crosses into unconstitutional territory — and whether the approving judicial officer, the prosecutor, and the complaining officer properly applied the law.

What the complaint claims — and why it matters

According to the documents, Union City Police Sgt. Jasen Bellamy signed a complaint alleging that Filipowski used social media and video commentary to attack his credibility, accuse him of misconduct, and call him “vile” or “derelict.” The narrative frames the posts as “defamation” and claims they were meant to cause emotional harm.

The complaint also references an earlier public incident where the sergeant was working in uniform and in his official capacity while Leroy Truth recorded, commented on events and posted written commentary on social media.

That detail is crucial: when speech targets a public official’s conduct at a public event, courts treat that as core political speech — the kind of expression that receives the strongest First Amendment protection.

The legal problem: New Jersey harassment law cannot be used to punish political criticism

New Jersey’s Supreme Court has repeatedly limited how harassment charges can be used when the alleged conduct is speech.

In State v. Hoffman, the Court explained that harassment cannot be based on mere annoyance or offense; the statute must be read narrowly to avoid punishing protected speech.

In State v. Burkert, the Court warned that harassment laws cannot be stretched to criminalize crude or insulting expression, especially when the speech is public commentary.

Put simply: calling a public official “vile,” accusing them of wrongdoing, or criticizing their job performance may be harsh — but it is usually protected speech, not criminal harassment.

The statute requires proof that the speaker’s purpose was to harass, not simply to criticize or speak out. Courts have said that political speech, even when aggressive or uncomfortable, generally does not meet that standard.

A pattern of complaints — and why it should have mattered here

This new case does not stand alone. Public reporting has described earlier “citizen complaints” against Leroy filed by Union City officials, including Mayor Brian Stack and Police Chief Anthony Facchini, over similar conflicts tied to political speech and recordings.

Media coverage has also documented a prior arrest at a Union City commissioners meeting over alleged “disrespect,” which later became the subject of litigation and broader First Amendment debate.

All charges have then been dismissed on First Amendment grounds.

That history is important because prosecutors and judges are supposed to consider context. When similar speech-based cases repeatedly arise — and courts have warned about constitutional limits — approving another nearly identical harassment charge without careful scrutiny invites criticism that the system is being used to pressure or silence a critic.

Why the sergeant’s complaint draws legal criticism

The complaint paperwork emphasizes reputational harm and alleged “slander.” But defamation disputes are normally handled through civil courts, not criminal harassment statutes.

Filing a criminal complaint over speech criticizing an officer’s conduct while on duty raises several concerns:

The speech appears to involve public commentary about official actions, not private targeted harassment. The officer, as seen by Leroy’s video on Facebook and YouTube, was acting in uniform at a public event, making him a public figure in that context, which increases First Amendment protections. The documents suggest official police contact information and departmental channels were used, creating the appearance that government resources are being used to pursue a personal grievance.

Even if legally allowed, using the weight of criminal process against political criticism can look less like law enforcement and more like retaliation — a perception that undermines public trust.

The prosecutor’s role — and why approving the case is controversial

New Jersey court rules require a probable cause review before a summons is issued on a private citizen complaint. That means a prosecutor or reviewing authority must determine whether the facts actually fit the law.

In a speech-based harassment case, that review should ask:

Is this speech directed at invading someone’s privacy, or is it general public commentary?

Is there any evidence of threats or intimidation — or just insults?

Does the complaint describe criminal conduct, or simply criticism that offended someone?

If the complaint is based mainly on online criticism of a public official, approving it risks contradicting New Jersey Supreme Court guidance that harassment statutes must be narrowly applied to avoid chilling free speech.

Critics argue that allowing a case like this to move forward suggests a failure to apply that constitutional filter at the prosecutorial level.

The approving judge — and the probable cause question

Equally controversial is the role of the judicial officer who approved the complaint. Judge Karen Boylan.

A judge is not supposed to rubber-stamp a harassment charge simply because someone claims to feel offended. Under court rules, the judge must independently decide whether the facts show probable cause for a criminal offense.

When the underlying conduct is political speech, that review carries even more weight. Courts are expected to apply constitutional limits before allowing criminal process to begin.

Approving a harassment summons based primarily on speech criticizing a police officer’s performance raises legitimate questions about whether the probable-cause standard was applied carefully — or whether the judge accepted a broad interpretation of the statute that higher courts have repeatedly rejected.

It would also question her judgement with other cases while on the bench.

The Secaucus Prosecutor’s, Michael B. Bookman , judgment and authority of prosecutorial discretion also comes into a serious question here. What really seems to be even more concerning is what exactly is being taught to these attorneys in law school when complaints like this is simple constitutional law of 101.

Why this case looks legally weak

Taken together, the facts described in the complaint suggest a dispute over public commentary rather than criminal harassment:

The speech appears tied to a public event and a public official’s duties. The alleged harm is reputational or emotional, not physical or threatening. The complaint uses language associated with civil defamation rather than criminal conduct.

Under New Jersey precedent, those factors make a harassment prosecution difficult to sustain.

The bigger picture

The controversy surrounding this new case is not just about one summons. It reflects a larger tension playing out in New Jersey and across the country: how far government officials can go in using harassment laws against outspoken critics.

When police officers, prosecutors, and judges approve criminal charges tied to political speech, they must walk a narrow constitutional line. If that line is crossed, the result is not just a weak case — it risks turning the criminal justice system into a tool that discourages public debate.

Whether this complaint survives in court remains to be seen. But the legal questions it raises — about free speech, probable cause, and the responsibilities of judges and prosecutors — are already impossible to ignore.

See bellow of all relevant complaints and pictures:

Political tensions in Union City escalated this week as multiple sources claimed that Board of Education employees were directed to go door-to-door distributing flyers connected to Mayor Brian P. Stack’s recent messaging campaign — despite freezing temperatures and fears of retaliation.

According to individuals familiar with the situation, several school employees and security personnel say they felt pressured to participate and were warned there would be consequences if they refused. Those accounts describe growing frustration among workers who believe they are being drawn into an increasingly aggressive political battle they never asked to join.

Sources say employees are especially upset that the outreach allegedly took place during harsh winter conditions, with some claiming they felt they had no choice but to comply because they feared losing their jobs.

A Pattern Critics Say Is Becoming Familiar

The controversy follows months of escalating political rhetoric surrounding Stack. Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop previously accused Stack of being driven by paranoia during a public feud reported by NJ.com, while North Bergen Mayor Nick Sacco also issued harsh criticism of Stack’s leadership style during that same dispute.

Detractors argue that the latest allegations involving school employees reflect a broader atmosphere of political pressure inside Union City’s institutions.

Another Round of Mailers on the Way

Meanwhile, organizers connected to the anonymous parent letters circulating across Union City say a second wave of mailers is being prepared in response to Stack’s recent communication to residents. If released, it could deepen an already heated war of narratives between City Hall and its critics.

For many employees, however, the issue is less about political messaging and more about workplace stress. Sources say frustration is growing among staff who feel caught between their professional roles and an increasingly charged political environment.

Unfortunately, this is looking more and more like Brian Stack may suffer from serious mental illness and paranoia.

Here is the secondary letter by the anonymous parents currently being mailed throughout Union City.

En respuesta a las cartas anónimas enviadas por padres de familia de Union City que plantean serias preocupaciones sobre la seguridad de los estudiantes y la rendición de cuentas del liderazgo local, Brian P. Stack ha vuelto a recurrir a un guion político ya conocido—uno que los residentes de Union City han visto repetirse una y otra vez.

En lugar de abordar el fondo de las preocupaciones planteadas por los padres de manera transparente y verificable, el volante de campaña del alcalde sigue un patrón desgastado: calificar las acusaciones como “mentiras”, desacreditar a quienes las formulan por ser anónimos y advertir a los votantes que la “temporada electoral” trae ataques falsos de enemigos no identificados.

Es una respuesta cargada de retórica, pero carente de hechos.

Las mismas frases, siempre

El volante insiste repetidamente en que las acusaciones de los padres son “infundadas” y “falsas”, pero no presenta ninguna evidencia que respalde esa afirmación. No se citan conclusiones de investigaciones, no se menciona ninguna revisión independiente ni se confirma que se haya completado una investigación. En su lugar, se pide a los residentes que confíen en afirmaciones generales de que el Ayuntamiento y la Junta de Educación “toman en serio cualquier acusación”.

Esto no es nuevo. Cada vez que enfrenta críticas, el alcalde Stack adopta la misma postura defensiva: negar irregularidades, cuestionar las motivaciones y presentar la disidencia como un ataque político.

Pero aquí está el problema con ese relato: no identifica a ningún oponente político.

La conveniente invención de “oponentes políticos”

Actualmente, el alcalde Stack se postula para su cargo sin oposición. Aun así, su volante advierte a los residentes sobre “mis oponentes políticos” que supuestamente difunden mentiras. ¿Quiénes son? No lo dice.

Los padres que redactaron la carta no se identificaron como candidatos, campañas ni organizaciones políticas. Se identificaron como padres preocupados por la seguridad de sus hijos. Al redefinirlos como adversarios políticos invisibles, el alcalde evita responder al tema central planteado en las cartas y, en su lugar, traslada la conversación a una narrativa de paranoia electoral.

Esta táctica puede ser políticamente conveniente, pero no tranquiliza a los padres que formulan preguntas legítimas.

Desvío en lugar de rendición de cuentas

Llama la atención lo que falta en la respuesta del alcalde. No hay ninguna explicación sobre:

Qué acusaciones específicas fueron revisadas Quién las revisó Si intervino alguna autoridad externa Si existen conclusiones o si se harán públicas

En cambio, a los residentes se les ofrece otra cosa: el número de teléfono celular personal del alcalde.

Si bien la accesibilidad puede ser positiva, no sustituye la transparencia institucional ni la supervisión independiente—especialmente cuando se trata de confianza pública, escuelas y la seguridad de los niños.

Un patrón que alimenta la desconfianza

Críticos sostienen que esta respuesta encaja en un patrón más amplio de gobernanza en Union City: uno en el que las preocupaciones serias se minimizan sistemáticamente, los críticos son desacreditados y los llamados a la transparencia se reinterpretan como ataques políticos. Independientemente de si las acusaciones resultan ser ciertas o no, descartarlas de plano sin rendición de cuentas pública solo profundiza el escepticismo.

Al etiquetar a padres preocupados como mentirosos y operadores políticos—sin aportar pruebas ni identificar responsables—el volante del alcalde plantea más preguntas de las que responde.

La pregunta que permanece

Si las acusaciones son realmente falsas, la solución es sencilla: mostrar los hechos. Publicar conclusiones. Permitir revisiones independientes. Brindar claridad.

Hasta que eso ocurra, muchos residentes verán este volante no como una respuesta tranquilizadora, sino como otro ejemplo de evasión—otra repetición de los mismos argumentos utilizados para proteger al Ayuntamiento del escrutinio público.

Y en una ciudad donde la confianza en el liderazgo ya es frágil, repetir las mismas frases puede acelerar precisamente las dudas que el alcalde afirma que no tienen fundamento.