Union City Faces Renewed Civil Rights Challenge Over Alleged Free Speech Suppression

Jersey City, N.J. — October 28, 2025 — A local independent journalist has filed a motion in Hudson County Superior Court seeking to reinstate his civil rights lawsuit against Union City and its top officials, including Mayor Brian Stack, alleging violations of his constitutional rights during public meetings.

The plaintiff, Leonard Filipowski, who operates under the name Leroy Truth Investigations, filed a 27-page pro se motion on October 26, 2025, asking Judge Kalimah Ahmad to vacate prior dismissal orders, reinstate his complaint, and extend discovery through mid-2026.

Filipowski’s lawsuit, originally filed in July 2024, accuses Union City, the Union City Police Department, Captain Omar Hernandez and Officer Fernando Muro, and members of the city’s Board of Commissioners of violating his First Amendment rights by removing and restricting him from speaking during public comment sessions. He contends that the city’s so-called “Rules of Decorum” unlawfully limit public speech and amount to unconstitutional censorship of criticism directed at city officials .

Claims of Attorney Neglect and Procedural Errors

According to Filipowski’s motion, the case was dismissed earlier this year due to his former attorney’s neglect, not his own inaction. The filing asserts that although Filipowski provided his attorney with all required discovery materials, the lawyer failed to serve or certify those responses, leading to a motion by the city to compel discovery and, ultimately, dismissal of the case in March 2025.

Filipowski argues that the dismissal and subsequent sanctions orders—totaling $4,294 in attorney’s fees—were issued based on an incomplete and misleading record. He says he was never informed of the motions, hearings, or fee applications that led to those orders.

“Plaintiff was deprived of any opportunity to respond or personally cure the alleged deficiencies,” Filipowski wrote, maintaining that he “acted diligently and in good faith” once he learned of the situation .

Allegations of Unequal Discovery and Government Evasion

The motion also accuses Union City officials and their counsel of failing to comply with their own discovery obligations, including refusing to provide substantive answers about the creation, enforcement, and rationale behind the “Rules of Decorum.”

The filing lists multiple interrogatories that the city allegedly evaded—such as questions on who drafted the rules, how they were communicated to the public, and whether they were enforced equally against all speakers.

Filipowski claims these omissions prevented him from obtaining key facts about how the city handles disruptions at meetings and whether its policies comply with constitutional standards.

Request for Reinstatement and Fee Relief

In his filing, Filipowski asks the court to vacate three prior orders dated January 31, March 20, and October 6, 2025, reinstate his complaint, and extend discovery through July 18, 2026. He also challenges the legal sufficiency of the city’s attorney-fee certification, arguing that it fails to meet New Jersey’s procedural requirements for detailing time, rate, and justification of costs.

The motion further cites financial hardship, requesting that if any fees remain due, the court allow him to pay in $10 monthly installments, invoking New Jersey’s principle that “no person shall be denied access to the courts by reason of poverty” (Rule 1:13-2).

Broader Implications

If reinstated, the case could test the limits of municipal “decorum rules” and public participation rights under both the U.S. Constitution and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. The dispute centers on whether Union City officials unlawfully silenced a government critic during open meetings—a recurring controversy in local governance nationwide.

Filipowski’s filing concludes by urging the court to focus on “substantive justice over procedural forfeiture,” arguing that the case should be decided on its merits rather than attorney error.

“To deny reinstatement because Plaintiff cannot pay a fee resulting from counsel’s neglect would be inequitable and contrary to the principles of fairness that guide our courts,” the motion states .

The court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.