THE BUCK STOPS WITH BRIAN STACK

Union City Police Trial Raises Serious Questions About Who Really Controls Promotions — and Why the Mayor Now Points Back at His Chiefs

UNION CITY, N.J. — We waited to report about this lawsuit. We wanted to obtain a great amount of information to provide a very detailed report with key information.

After weeks of testimony in retired Union City Police Officer Juan Estrella’s discrimination trial, one question has become increasingly difficult for Union City Mayor and Public Safety Director Brian Stack to escape:

Who actually controls promotions in the Union City Police Department?

Listen to the testimony of former Chief Nichelle Luster and several current and former Union City police officers, and the answer repeatedly leads back to Stack.

Listen to Stack himself, however, and responsibility suddenly appears to travel in the opposite direction.

Stack acknowledges that he is the public safety director. He acknowledges reviewing and approving police promotions. He acknowledges signing the Civil Service documents that make those promotions official.

Yet when confronted at trial with questions about why some officers with significant disciplinary histories were promoted while Estrella was bypassed, Stack repeatedly emphasized that he simply relied upon his police chiefs.

That creates one of the most striking contradictions to emerge from this trial.

For decades, Stack has occupied the position at the top of Union City’s public-safety structure. But when the promotion process itself came under scrutiny in a courtroom, his testimony effectively portrayed his role as something far more limited: the official who signs what the chief puts in front of him.

If that characterization is accurate, it raises an obvious question:

What exactly was Stack reviewing and approving?

And if it is not accurate, an even more serious question follows:

Who should ultimately be held accountable for the promotion decisions made under his authority?

IT STARTED WITH JUAN ESTRELLA

Estrella’s battle began publicly in April 2022, when he filed an eight-count lawsuit alleging that then-Police Chief Nichelle Luster had used allegedly bogus or petty disciplinary accusations to interfere with his promotion to sergeant.

Estrella, who is Dominican, alleged that he was bypassed despite reaching a promotable position on the New Jersey Civil Service list.

The original lawsuit contained another allegation that would eventually become extremely important.

Estrella claimed he had been told that Stack would promote him.

His July 2022 amended complaint went considerably further, identifying numerous Union City officers who Estrella alleged had more serious disciplinary histories but nevertheless received promotions.

Four years later, those officers and their records have become a central part of the trial.

The defense maintains there was nothing discriminatory about the decision. Union City has relied in part upon New Jersey Civil Service’s Rule of Three, under which the appointing authority is not necessarily required to promote the highest-ranked candidate.

The city contends Estrella was bypassed because of his disciplinary history and problems following departmental rules—not because he was Dominican.

Estrella’s attorneys have responded with a simple but potentially powerful question:

If discipline made Estrella unsuitable to supervise officers, why did significant discipline apparently not prevent numerous other Union City officers from being promoted?

SERGIO DEROJAS: WHO PROMOTED YOU?

Before the testimony of Ret. Lt. Sergio DeRojas, attorneys and the judge discussed a critical concern with Sergio’s disciplinary history. The discussion lead to question when DeRojas was interviewed during deposition, DeRojas admitted to “sexual assault” toward a former police dispatcher but was subsequently only disciplined for “sexual harassment”. Implicating that the police department, internal affairs and the city deliberately and purposely downgraded the complaint against DeRojas to avoid criminal prosecution.

The judge was concerned over DeRojas verbal admission and the handling of that case and expressed the differences between assault and harassment. Judge also noted DeRojas can still face appropriate prosecution for those actions.

Retired Sgt. Sergio DeRojas acknowledged at trial that he had been suspended at least twice before being promoted.

Plaintiff attorney Ernest Ianetti asked him directly:

Who made the decision to promote him?

DeRojas answered:

“The director of public safety, Brian Stack.”

DeRojas was adamant that he never discussed his promotion with Stack. He described their relationship as friendly but limited.

That distinction matters.

There is no basis from DeRojas’s testimony alone to claim that he personally negotiated a promotion with Stack.

But when asked who made the decision, DeRojas didn’t identify the police chief.

He identified Brian Stack.

DeRojas also acknowledged that he had more disciplinary matters than awards.

RUBEN RODRIGUEZ: 105 DAYS DIDN’T END HIS PROMOTIONAL CAREER

Then came retired Sgt. Ruben Rodriguez.

Rodriguez acknowledged a 105-day suspension for conduct unbecoming before becoming a sergeant.

He also acknowledged two additional suspensions involving neglect of duty and mishandling evidence.

Yet Rodriguez ultimately became a supervisor.

And according to the testimony reported from the trial, Stack, as public safety director, signed off on that promotion.

Again, Rodriguez did not claim he discussed the promotion personally with Stack.

But once again, Stack occupied the position of final governmental approval.

Rodriguez eventually retired after he faced criminal charges for falsifying a police report.

RICHARD “RICHIE” PEREZ

Former Capt. Richard Perez served under multiple police chiefs and received promotions despite having disciplinary history.

Ianetti confronted Perez with the pattern.

Three separate chiefs had recommended him notwithstanding that history.

And who was sitting above those chiefs?

Brian Stack.

Asked whether Stack, as public safety director, signed off on those recommendations and promotions despite Perez’s disciplinary history, Perez answered:

“I believe so.”

Asked whether Stack did so notwithstanding that disciplinary history:

“Correct.”

Perez eventually rose all the way to captain.

JUAN LOACES: A 180-DAY SUSPENSION

Former Lt. Juan Loaces presented an even more dramatic comparison.

Loaces testified about a 180-day suspension stemming from an incident in which he was present when another officer fired a paintball gun at someone from a vehicle.

Loaces disputed personal responsibility for the underlying conduct on the witness stand, although he acknowledged signing a disciplinary settlement containing sustained charges, including conduct unbecoming an officer.

A 180-day suspension nevertheless did not permanently prevent Loaces from moving through the department.

He ultimately became a lieutenant, nd became an ICE officer after retirement for a short period of time. Loaces denied currently being employed by the federal government, however, previous circulating pictures shows Loaces wearing a tactical vest with ICE markings along with other ICE Officers in Newark Airport.

That fact goes directly to one of the questions Estrella’s lawyers are putting before the jury:

How severe did discipline have to become before Union City considered an officer permanently unsuitable for promotion?

And was that standard applied consistently?

WILLIE SIERRA AND THE SAME QUESTION

Former Capt. and Internal Affairs supervisor Willie Sierra testified about the department’s disciplinary records and promotion procedures.

Published coverage of his testimony again identified Stack as having the final say in Union City police promotions.

Sierra’s involvement also brings historical context to the controversy.

Years before Estrella’s lawsuit, Sierra and other Union City officers were involved in separate litigation alleging political retaliation and favoritism involving police promotions.

Sierra ultimately settled his individual case.

The earlier allegations do not prove Estrella’s current national-origin discrimination claim.

But they demonstrate something important:

Arguments about political influence, promotional authority and Brian Stack’s role in Union City police promotions did not begin with Juan Estrella.

They have been raised in litigation before.

THEN CAME GLENN GASTON

Perhaps one of the most troubling disciplinary comparisons presented during the current trial concerns Glenn Gaston.

Gaston acknowledged under oath that he had sustained charges involving untruthfulness concerning an incident in which he was injured while off duty but represented the injury as occurring on duty.

Despite that sustained finding, Gaston continued advancing through the Union City Police Department.

That matters because truthfulness is not an insignificant characteristic for a police officer.

New Jersey’s Brady-Giglio policies specifically recognize that a sustained finding that a law-enforcement employee was untruthful or demonstrated a lack of candor may constitute impeachment information that prosecutors must evaluate for disclosure.

According to an account from an individual who listened to Gaston’s court audio, Gaston additionally acknowledged being subject to Brady-Giglio disclosure/list procedures.

That particular assertion should presently be treated with caution because a publicly available transcript or official prosecutor record independently confirming Gaston’s individual Brady-Giglio status has not been identified.

But there is no need to exaggerate what has already been publicly reported.

Gaston acknowledged a sustained untruthfulness finding under oath.

And he was nevertheless promoted.

That alone presents an obvious comparison with the city’s argument that Estrella’s disciplinary history rendered him unsuitable for supervision.

Gaston is known in the police Department as an “EDP” (Emotional Disturbed Person) according to internal police sources. A term used by officers to describe an individual with psychological concerns.

ESTRELLA’S OWN EVALUATIONS

Then the jury heard about Estrella’s performance.

Lt. Christopher Rengel confirmed an evaluation of Estrella containing no “unacceptable” ratings.

Even more strikingly, Gaston himself had previously written favorably about Estrella.

That evaluation described Estrella as having a great attitude toward the department and police work, good attendance, professional appearance and disposition, and a willingness to complete his responsibilities.

Yet Luster maintained that other information—particularly discipline—caused her to conclude Estrella should not become a supervisor.

Luster testified that disciplinary histories should be considered according to factors including recency, severity and the cumulative record of the officer.

That may be a legitimate management philosophy.

But it becomes far more difficult to understand when placed next to officers who received suspensions of 105 days or 180 days, or a sustained untruthfulness finding, and nevertheless climbed through the ranks.

That is precisely the inconsistency Estrella’s lawyers want the jury to examine.

THEN NICHELLE LUSTER SAID SOMETHING IMPORTANT

When retired Police Chief Luster took the witness stand, the question of authority became much clearer.

She testified that she did not possess final authority over police promotions.

She made recommendations.

Who possessed ultimate authority?

According to Luster:

Brian Stack.

As public safety director, Luster testified, Stack was the ultimate authority who decided which Union City police officers were promoted.

That is not an allegation from a political opponent.

It is reported sworn testimony from the former chief of the police department Stack supervised as public safety director.

And it aligned in significant respects with testimony from other officers identifying Stack as the official who made, approved or had the final say over promotions.

Then Stack took the stand.

And suddenly the responsibility became somebody else’s.

STACK: I JUST RELIED ON THE CHIEF

Stack acknowledged that his responsibilities as public safety director included reviewing and approving police promotions.

He acknowledged signing the documents.

He acknowledged reviewing disciplinary documents that came before him.

But when Ianetti began digging into what Stack actually did when reviewing promotional recommendations, Stack repeatedly returned to essentially the same answer:

“I rely on the recommendation of the chief.”

Stack testified that he could not remember ever rejecting a police chief’s recommendation concerning a suspension or promotion.

Think about the significance of that testimony.

The man occupying the position of public safety director for more than two decades—the official signing promotion documents and possessing formal approval authority—could not identify a promotion recommendation he remembered rejecting.

When Ianetti challenged whether Stack was effectively abandoning his responsibility to independently review recommendations, Stack disagreed.

But when pressed to identify what actual independent review he performed in Estrella’s case, his answer returned to the chief:

“I followed the recommendation of the chief as I’ve done since I became the director of public safety.”

That answer creates a serious accountability problem regardless of which interpretation the jury ultimately accepts.

If Stack exercised genuine discretion, then he cannot simply erase his role by pointing downward at the chief whose recommendation he approved.

If Stack exercised virtually no discretion and automatically approved whatever chiefs recommended, then legitimate questions arise about what meaningful purpose his review and approval served.

Either Stack was the final decision-maker or he was a rubber stamp.

Neither possibility makes his responsibility disappear.

STACK EVEN WANTED ESTRELLA PROMOTED

Stack’s testimony becomes even more complicated regarding Estrella personally.

Stack testified that Luster was extremely firm that Estrella should not become a supervisor because of his disciplinary history.

Stack said he initially wanted Estrella promoted.

He asked Luster to reconsider.

She refused.

Stack ultimately accepted her recommendation.

But Stack also testified that he did not know exactly what Luster reviewed in reaching that decision.

He did not know whether she consulted Estrella’s supervisors.

And when questioned about whether police chiefs historically discussed officers’ disciplinary histories with him when recommending promotions, Stack answered:

“Not that I could remember.”

That is extraordinary in the context of the defense being presented.

Union City says Estrella’s discipline justified bypassing him.

Luster says discipline was an important component of her recommendation.

Yet Stack—the official who approved the ultimate decision—testified that he could not remember chiefs discussing disciplinary histories during other promotions.

The obvious question becomes:

Why did discipline suddenly carry such enormous weight when Juan Estrella reached the promotional list?

That question becomes even more difficult when placed next to DeRojas, Rodriguez, Perez, Loaces and Gaston.

ESTRELLA’S VERSION PUTS STACK DIRECTLY IN THE ROOM

Then Estrella took the stand.

According to Estrella’s sworn testimony, after his disciplinary matters had closed, he approached Luster about becoming sergeant and was told he needed to speak with Stack.

Stack subsequently contacted Estrella’s father and arranged to meet with them.

According to Estrella, Stack told him:

“We all make mistakes. But I’m going to promote you.”

Estrella testified that he questioned Stack to make sure he understood correctly.

Stack allegedly responded:

“Yes, I promise I’m going to promote you.”

Estrella says that promise disappeared after Stack and Luster clashed over his promotion.

According to Estrella’s testimony, Stack later told him he could not promote him because he had argued with Luster about the matter and that Luster had threatened to “go public.”

Estrella testified that Stack told him he would promote him after Luster retired.

Those remain Estrella’s allegations and sworn testimony. The jury must determine credibility and ultimately decide what occurred.

But the testimony raises an unavoidable question.

If Stack truly had essentially no substantive role in promotions beyond following a chief’s recommendation, why would Estrella have been directed to Stack in the first place, and why would Stack allegedly be discussing whether Estrella would be promoted?

EVERY ROAD SEEMS TO LEAD BACK TO STACK

Consider the testimony collectively.

DeRojas identified the director of public safety, Brian Stack, when asked who made his promotion decision.

Rodriguez’s promotion was signed off on by Stack.

Perez acknowledged Stack signed off on promotions despite his disciplinary history.

Sierra’s testimony was reported as identifying Stack as having the final say.

Luster—the former chief herself—testified that Stack was the ultimate authority who decided promotions.

Estrella testified that Stack personally promised him a promotion.

And Stack himself acknowledged that he reviewed and approved promotion recommendations and signed the necessary documents.

Then, when confronted with responsibility for the system, Stack emphasized:

The chief recommended it.

That may ultimately be accepted by the jury as a legitimate explanation.

But it does not erase the contradiction.

For years, promotions went across Stack’s desk.

Stack signed them.

Officers with substantial disciplinary histories advanced through the department while Stack occupied the public-safety position.

Now that one of those promotional decisions is being examined before a jury, Stack’s defense effectively asks the public to believe that the chiefs were making the real decisions and he merely trusted their judgment.

That deserves scrutiny.

THE MYSTERY WITNESS:

This week, the plaintiff identified a potential witness who is reportedly willing to testify that they have firsthand knowledge of former Union City Police Chief Nichelle Luster allegedly making derogatory comments about Dominicans. The defense is attempting to prevent the witness from testifying, while separate allegations have reportedly surfaced that defense attorneys attempted to improperly influence or interfere with the witness. The judge will decide on this matter in the upcoming days.

AUTHORITY WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY?

There is an even broader issue here than Estrella.

Stack has simultaneously served as mayor and public safety director for years.

Yet he acknowledged having no other law-enforcement experience.

Stack’s defense emphasized that he does not run the day-to-day operations of the police department and appropriately relies on experienced police chiefs.

That is reasonable as far as operational policing is concerned.

A mayor should not be deciding how detectives conduct investigations or how patrol officers respond to calls.

But promoting police officers is not routine patrol supervision.

It determines who receives governmental authority, who supervises other officers and who eventually occupies the command structure of a police department.

If Stack reserves formal authority to review and approve those decisions, his accountability cannot logically disappear simply because a police chief made the initial recommendation.

Otherwise, what does “approval” actually mean?

If the answer is merely signing whatever appears on his desk, then perhaps the more fundamental question is why Union City’s political leadership retains that authority at all.

THE CONTRADICTION THE JURY NOW HAS TO CONFRONT

The evidence has not established that every disputed promotion was corrupt.

It has not established that every officer who supported Stack received preferential treatment.

And it has not yet established that Estrella was discriminated against because he is Dominican.

Those are distinctions that must remain clear.

The case is ongoing.

But something important has already happened.

Under oath, witnesses have exposed a system in which responsibility for promotions appears to move depending upon who is answering the question.

Police officers identify Stack.

The former chief identifies Stack.

The documents require Stack’s approval.

Stack acknowledges approving them.

But when the consequences of those decisions are examined, Stack points back toward the police chiefs.

That should concern anyone interested in transparent government.

Political power accompanied by plausible deniability is not meaningful accountability.

If Brian Stack possesses the authority to approve police promotions, then Brian Stack should answer for the promotions he approves.

If he does not actually exercise that authority and simply approves whatever a chief recommends, then Union City should explain why the public safety director’s approval exists in the first place.

He cannot logically occupy both positions simultaneously:

the official powerful enough to approve every promotion, yet somehow too removed from the process to bear responsibility for any of them.

THE DISCIPLINE QUESTION REMAINS

And then there is the fundamental question that started this entire trial.

A 105-day suspension did not necessarily prevent promotion.

A 180-day suspension did not necessarily prevent promotion.

Other officers with multiple disciplinary matters advanced.

A sustained untruthfulness finding did not necessarily end an officer’s promotional career.

Yet Union City maintains that Juan Estrella’s disciplinary history justified denying him a supervisory position.

Maybe the city can persuade the jury that meaningful differences existed between those officers and Estrella.

That is what trials are for.

But after weeks of testimony, Union City cannot reasonably expect the public simply to ignore those comparisons.

Nor should Stack be insulated from scrutiny simply because a police chief’s recommendation preceded his signature.

THIS TRIAL IS STILL GOING

The trial remains ongoing, and Estrella has not yet won his discrimination claim.

The court has already narrowed the litigation, and the jury will ultimately decide whether Estrella proves that national-origin discrimination caused his bypass.

Additional witnesses and evidentiary disputes could also materially affect the record.

That means conclusions about liability must wait.

But accountability does not require waiting for a verdict before asking difficult questions about testimony already given publicly.

The testimony concerning promotions, disciplinary histories and the chain of authority deserves examination regardless of which side ultimately wins.

Because after officer after officer, a former Internal Affairs commander, a former police chief and finally the mayor himself have testified about how this system operated, one question refuses to disappear:

IF BRIAN STACK HAS THE FINAL SIGNATURE, THE FINAL APPROVAL AND THE FORMAL AUTHORITY — WHY DOES RESPONSIBILITY ALWAYS SEEM TO BELONG TO SOMEONE ELSE?

That may ultimately become one of the most important questions to emerge from the Juan Estrella trial.

Hudson County Executive Craig Guy has repeatedly spoken about transparency and accountability in government. Those are admirable principles. But transparency is measured not by campaign slogans or press releases—it is measured by how public officials respond when difficult questions arise.

One incident that deserves renewed attention is the abrupt July 2024 resignation of Guy’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Julietta Vogt.

According to reporting by Hudson County View, Vogt submitted a resignation letter that was effective immediately. At the time, she had recently stepped down as Executive Director of the Hudson County Democratic Organization (HCDO), a position she had held since 2018. She also served as Craig Guy’s 2023 campaign manager and later managed Congressman Rob Menendez’s 2024 Democratic primary campaign. (Hudson County View⁠)

The article also reported that Vogt was the second-highest-ranking employee in the County Executive’s Office, behind Chief of Staff Jenny Davis. She had additionally been appointed earlier that year to the Hudson County Schools of Technology Board. Shortly after her resignation, she was replaced on that board as well. (Hudson County View⁠)

Yet despite the significance of her position, the public received virtually no explanation.

The county confirmed only that Vogt had resigned effective immediately. Hudson County View reported that she could not be reached for comment, that her phone appeared disconnected, and that sources indicated she had also departed from her HCDO role. Craig Guy did not immediately respond to the publication’s request for comment at the time. (Hudson County View⁠)

That leaves taxpayers with legitimate questions:

• Why did one of the County Executive’s closest advisers resign so abruptly?
• Why did the resignation coincide with her departure from the HCDO?
• Was the resignation entirely voluntary?
• Were there any internal issues that the public should know about?
• Why was there never a detailed public explanation from the County Executive’s Office?

These are not accusations. They are reasonable questions about the departure of a senior public official whose salary was paid by taxpayers.

Public confidence depends on openness. When a high-ranking official leaves without explanation, silence often creates more speculation than transparency ever would.

If the Guy administration truly wants to distinguish itself as one committed to transparency, then transparency should not apply only to convenient moments. It should also apply when senior staff members unexpectedly resign.

The public deserves more than a one-sentence confirmation that someone has left. Taxpayers deserve an explanation consistent with the promises of open government.

Transparency is not a campaign slogan.

It is a commitment to answer difficult questions—even when the answers may be uncomfortable.

The recent events involving YouTube content creator Predator Poachers in North Bergen have generated significant public discussion throughout Hudson County.

According to publicly reported information, an individual identified as Jeffrey Sanders was allegedly confronted after online communications in which he was led to believe he was communicating with a minor. The confrontation was conducted by members of the Predator Poachers channel, who are known for posing as minors online in an effort to expose individuals allegedly seeking sexual encounters with children.

Following the confrontation, Jeff admitted on video of the believed encounter with a minor and possession of child explicit photos and videos in his cell phone the North Bergen Police Department responded to the scene. According to reports, officers conducted their own investigation before placing the individual under arrest. Public discussion has also centered on allegations that the individual worked as a janitor at an elementary school in Union City.

If these allegations are ultimately proven in court, they represent exactly the type of conduct that communities must remain vigilant against. Parents deserve to know that every reasonable effort is being made to protect children from those who would seek to exploit them.

Protecting children should always remain a priority.

It is unverified if Sanders works as a janitor for a Union City Elementary School as rumors spread.

This come just as Union City, Union City Board of Education and Mayor Brian Stack are criticized for protecting political allies of the mayor who are alleged to be sexual predators.

Every allegation involving the exploitation of children deserves to be taken seriously, investigated thoroughly, and prosecuted when supported by sufficient evidence. Equally important is ensuring that every accused person receives the due process guaranteed under the Constitution.

See the video below of the encounter by clicking on the link.

https://kick.com/predatorpoachers/videos/7a08847a-6bb9-401a-897e-7c10394324cf

Disclaimer: The individual discussed in this article has been arrested and/or charged based on allegations. Under the United States legal system, every person is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Nothing in this opinion article should be interpreted as a determination of guilt, and all criminal charges remain allegations unless proven in court.