Breaking News
The Lawsuit of the Decade: Ret. Officer Juan Estrella v. Union City & Brian Stack
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.
Discover more from Hudson County Truth
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Breaking News
NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL FINDS NO WRONGDOING FOR TWO UNION CITY POLICE OFFICERS. THE CITY CONTINUES RETALIATION
UNION CITY, NJ — How long will the Union City Police Department continue to sideline two officers after the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office reportedly found no wrongdoing?
Detective Jorge Haber and Officer David Tafur have reportedly spent over a year on modified duty, assigned to dispatch rather than their regular law enforcement responsibilities, following allegations that confidential police body-camera footage and political information were leaked to investigative journalist Leroy Truth, known for exposing corruption in Union City.
The investigation reportedly included the seizure of both officers’ personal cell phones pursuant to a warrant. Yet, according to information provided to this publication, the Attorney General’s Office concluded just couple months ago that neither officer engaged in wrongdoing.
So why are they still being punished through continued modified-duty assignments?
The matter has reportedly returned to the Union City Police Department’s Internal Affairs Unit, where Chief Walter Laurencio and department leadership have yet to restore the officers to regular duty. The continued delay also raises concerns about Detective Haber’s future promotional opportunities, in which currently, Det. Haber is placed on the Sgt promotional list.
The political implications are especially troubling. Both officers have reportedly been viewed as political opponents of Mayor Brian Stack.
Even more concerning, Officer Tafur recently testified against Stack in a racial discrimination lawsuit brought by a retired Union City police officer. According to judicial records and the verdict by the Jury, Stack and a former police chief were found liable in both their official and individual capacities.
The question is unavoidable: Is Union City conducting a legitimate administrative review, or using Internal Affairs and modified-duty assignments as instruments of political retaliation?
If the Attorney General’s Office found no wrongdoing, Chief Laurencio and Mayor Stack owe the public an explanation for why these officers remain sidelined.
An officer’s political views or testimony against City leadership should never determine that officer’s career opportunities.
Union City residents deserve accountability—not a police department where political loyalty appears to matter more than fairness, due process, and professional integrity.
Discover more from Hudson County Truth
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Breaking News
EL DESESPERADO CONTROL DE DAÑOS DE BRIAN STACK: UN JURADO LO DECLARÓ RESPONSABLE, PERO EL ALCALDE TODAVÍA SE NIEGA A ADMITIR QUE SE EQUIVOCÓ
Por John Lang | Hudson County Truth | 8 de octubre de 2026
UNION CITY, NUEVA JERSEY — Después de 26 años como alcalde, Brian P. Stack aparentemente ha perfeccionado una habilidad política: culpar a todos los demás cuando algo sale mal.
Tras la demanda por discriminación presentada por Juan Estrella, en la que ocho miembros del jurado declararon unánimemente a Stack responsable de ayudar y facilitar la discriminación contra un oficial de policía de Union City, el alcalde ha emprendido lo que parece ser una desesperada campaña política para controlar los daños a su imagen.
En lugar de asumir responsabilidad o abordar las conclusiones del jurado, Stack ha recurrido a sus seguidores políticos, declaraciones públicas, cartas enviadas por todo el distrito y un anuncio político pagado de tres páginas en el periódico hispano El Especialito para defenderse.
¿Su mensaje? El oficial está equivocado, sus enemigos políticos son los responsables y, de alguna manera, Brian Stack es la verdadera víctima.
Pero aquí está la pregunta: ¿Alguien ha escuchado alguna vez a Brian Stack admitir que se equivocó en algo?
UN ALCALDE QUE NO PUEDE ACEPTAR EL VEREDICTO DE UN JURADO
El jurado otorgó a Juan Estrella 853,000 dólares en compensación por daños, mientras que la determinación de posibles daños punitivos continúa pendiente.
Sin embargo, la carta de Stack no reconoce ninguna conducta indebida. En cambio, ataca la credibilidad del oficial, cuestiona sus motivos y describe la demanda como una oportunidad para obtener dinero, comparándola con un cajero automático.
Aparentemente, cuando un jurado falla en contra de Brian Stack, el problema no es su conducta. El problema son todos los demás.
Y la propia carta del alcalde plantea más preguntas de las que responde.
Stack afirma que el historial disciplinario de Estrella impidió su ascenso. Sin embargo, la misma transcripción judicial que Stack publicó incluye el testimonio bajo juramento de Estrella, quien declaró que la exjefa de Policía Nichelle Luster no quería que fuera ascendido y que otros supervisores con historiales disciplinarios más graves sí habían recibido ascensos.
¿Por qué destacar el testimonio que favorece su defensa mientras evita abordar el testimonio que la contradice?
Incluso las fechas están equivocadas. La carta de Stack identifica el 6 de septiembre de 2026 como la fecha del testimonio, mientras que la transcripción judicial indica el 1 de septiembre.
Para alguien que preside el Comité Judicial del Senado de Nueva Jersey, la precisión sobre los procedimientos judiciales no debería ser opcional.
SEGUIDORES POLÍTICOS, EMPLEOS GUBERNAMENTALES Y LAS PROPIAS PALABRAS DE STACK
Quizás la declaración más reveladora de la carta de Stack sea su descripción de la familia de Estrella:
“Ellos eran seguidores políticos; ayudé a muchos de ellos con empleos y otros asuntos, como trato de hacer por todos”.
Léanlo otra vez.
Seguidores políticos. Ayuda para conseguir empleos. Todo en la misma oración.
El artículo sostiene que esa declaración demuestra favoritismo político y, ciertamente, plantea preguntas legítimas sobre cómo se distribuyen las oportunidades de empleo público en Union City.
¿Cuántos empleados municipales y de la Junta de Educación son seguidores políticos de Brian Stack? ¿Cuántos fueron contratados estrictamente por sus cualificaciones? ¿Cuántos tienen conexiones políticas?
¿Y qué ocurre con las personas políticamente conectadas que ocupan puestos administrativos bien remunerados, incluido el secretario de la Junta de Educación, Justin Mercado?
Sus cualificaciones, historial de nombramientos y remuneración financiada con fondos públicos merecen ser examinados, no simplemente presumidos.
Los empleos pagados con dinero de los contribuyentes deberían otorgarse por méritos y cualificaciones, no por lealtad política.
Quizás haya llegado el momento de comparar los registros de contribuciones a campañas políticas, las nóminas públicas y los expedientes de contratación gubernamental.
LA EXCUSA ELECTORAL QUE NO TIENE ABSOLUTAMENTE NINGÚN SENTIDO
Stack también sugiere que la demanda tuvo motivaciones políticas debido a su próxima campaña de reelección al Senado.
Pero existe un pequeño detalle inconveniente.
Estrella presentó su demanda el 20 de abril de 2022. Las próximas elecciones de Stack al Senado serán en noviembre de 2027.
¿Se supone que los residentes deben creer que Estrella organizó una demanda con cinco años de anticipación, controló el calendario judicial y consiguió que el jurado emitiera su veredicto en un momento políticamente inconveniente?
¿Cuántas elecciones han ocurrido desde que comenzó esta demanda?
El sistema judicial no funciona de acuerdo con el calendario electoral de Brian Stack.
Su intento de presentar este caso como una conspiración electoral es un insulto a la inteligencia del público.
¿UNA REPENTINA CELEBRACIÓN DE APOYO DOMINICANO?
Después del veredicto, Stack también celebró un evento de la Herencia Hispana que incluyó demostraciones públicas de apoyo político, con pancartas que destacaban su relación con la comunidad dominicana.
No hay absolutamente nada malo en celebrar la herencia hispana o dominicana.
Pero el momento en que se realizó merece ser examinado.
Después de que un jurado declarara a Stack responsable de ayudar y facilitar la discriminación contra un oficial dominicano, las demostraciones públicas de apoyo dominicano repentinamente adquirieron un importante valor político.
¿Fue simplemente una celebración cultural o fue otro intento de reparar su deteriorada imagen política?
Según el artículo, los asistentes parecían ser principalmente empleados de la Junta de Educación y seguidores que habrían recibido instrucciones de asistir, como supuestamente ocurre en otros eventos políticos organizados por Brian Stack.
El momento y los mensajes políticos son imposibles de ignorar.
Tener amigos, familiares y seguidores dominicanos no demuestra que una persona sea incapaz de discriminar contra un empleado dominicano.
Un jurado ya examinó las pruebas y emitió su veredicto.
AHORA SUS CARTAS HAN PROVOCADO OTRA CONTROVERSIA JUDICIAL
El 2 de octubre de 2026, los abogados que representan a Juan Estrella presentaron una solicitud ante el tribunal expresando serias preocupaciones sobre las cartas enviadas masivamente por Stack.
¿El problema?
El jurado todavía permanecía constituido para considerar los daños punitivos mientras Stack distribuía su versión de la demanda por todo el Distrito Legislativo 33.
Los abogados de Estrella solicitaron una investigación para determinar si algún miembro del jurado recibió las cartas y si los abogados de la defensa participaron en su preparación o distribución.
También cuestionaron declaraciones de la carta que calificaron como inexactas o engañosas.
La presentación judicial no demuestra que los jurados hayan estado expuestos a las cartas ni que se haya cometido alguna conducta indebida. Tampoco documenta que se haya emitido una orden judicial para detener su distribución.
Sin embargo, el hecho de que estas cartas provocaran una solicitud formal de investigación judicial es significativo.
Piénsenlo.
En lugar de permitir que los procedimientos judiciales restantes continuaran sin controversias adicionales, los mensajes políticos de Stack se han convertido en otro asunto que se le ha solicitado examinar al juez.
¿En qué momento el control de daños políticos se vuelve más importante para Brian Stack que respetar el proceso judicial?
LOS CONTRIBUYENTES SIGUEN PAGANDO MIENTRAS STACK CONTINÚA DEFENDIÉNDOSE
Stack se queja de que la demanda representa un gasto para los residentes de Union City.
Entonces, quizás debería explicar exactamente cuánto dinero de los contribuyentes se ha gastado defendiendo este caso.
¿Cuánto se ha pagado a abogados externos? ¿Cuánto costará una apelación? ¿Qué parte del veredicto podría terminar pagándose con fondos públicos o seguros? ¿Y cuánto más podrían agregar los procedimientos pendientes relacionados con daños punitivos?
La exposición económica exacta de los contribuyentes todavía debe determinarse mediante registros públicos.
Pero los residentes merecen una explicación completa.
Y ya que estamos hablando de responsabilidad, consideremos cuántos cargos de influencia ocupa Brian Stack.
Alcalde. Director de Seguridad Pública. Senador estatal. Presidente del Comité Judicial del Senado. Líder político de Union City First.
Sin embargo, en su carta defendiéndose de un veredicto por discriminación policial, se identifica simplemente como alcalde.
Convenientemente, el título de Director de Seguridad Pública —el cargo más directamente relacionado con la supervisión del Departamento de Policía— no aparece en el encabezado de la carta.
¿Coincidencia? Quizás. Pero ciertamente merece señalarse.
Tal vez el problema de otorgarle tanta autoridad a un solo político sea que nadie a su alrededor esté dispuesto a decirle cuándo se equivoca.
VEINTISÉIS AÑOS COMO ALCALDE. ¿NI UNA SOLA ADMISIÓN DE ERROR?
Brian Stack tiene todo el derecho legal de impugnar el veredicto y defenderse.
Pero existe una diferencia entre defenderse ante un tribunal y realizar una campaña política para desacreditar a alguien que obtuvo un veredicto favorable de un jurado.
Su carta presenta a sus enemigos políticos como responsables. Sus seguidores se apresuran a defenderlo. Su organización política distribuye sus explicaciones. Y se espera que los residentes acepten que todos los demás están equivocados.
Mientras tanto, el hecho más importante permanece sin cambios:
Ocho miembros del jurado declararon unánimemente a Brian Stack responsable de ayudar y facilitar la discriminación.
Ninguna carta política cambia eso.
Ningún anuncio en un periódico cambia eso.
Ninguna celebración ni respaldo público cambia eso.
Stack puede haber pasado 26 años construyendo una maquinaria política, pero el poder político no convierte a nadie en infalible.
Union City necesita un liderazgo cualificado e independiente, no un sistema en el que una sola persona ocupe múltiples posiciones de autoridad mientras se rodea de lealtad política.
Los residentes deberían exigir transparencia, supervisión independiente, contrataciones públicas justas y una explicación completa de los gastos relacionados con este litigio.
Y deberían guardar cada carta política que Stack envíe. Colóquenlas una al lado de la otra y busquen las palabras que parecen imposibles de pronunciar para él:
“Me equivoqué”.
Stack firmó su carta:
“Tu amigo”.
Bueno, alcalde Stack, los verdaderos amigos se dicen la verdad.
Un jurado lo declaró responsable. Sus seguidores políticos no pueden anular ese veredicto con aplausos. Y los residentes de Union City merecen responsabilidad y rendición de cuentas, no otra excusa.
Veintiséis años como alcalde y, de alguna manera, Brian Stack nunca se equivoca. Qué curioso que los contribuyentes todavía puedan terminar pagando por todas esas ocasiones en las que él insiste que tenía razón.
Comentario editorial basado en el veredicto del jurado de septiembre de 2026 en el caso Estrella, la carta política publicada por Brian Stack, la edición del 2 al 8 de octubre de 2026 de El Especialito y la solicitud judicial del 2 de octubre de 2026 en Juan Estrella contra la Ciudad de Union City, expediente HUD-L-000064-23. Las preguntas sobre favoritismo político, motivaciones electorales y gastos públicos se presentan como asuntos que requieren mayor investigación.
Discover more from Hudson County Truth
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Breaking News
BRIAN STACK’S DESPERATE DAMAGE CONTROL: A JURY FOUND HIM LIABLE, BUT THE MAYOR STILL REFUSES TO ADMIT HE WAS WRONG
UNION CITY, NJ — After 26 years as mayor, Brian P. Stack has apparently mastered one political skill: blaming everyone else when something goes wrong.
Following the Juan Estrella discrimination lawsuit, in which eight jurors unanimously found Stack liable for aiding and abetting discrimination against a Union City police officer, the mayor has launched what appears to be a desperate political damage-control campaign.
Instead of accepting responsibility or addressing the jury’s findings, Stack has relied on political supporters, public statements, districtwide mailings, and a three-page paid advertisement in the Hispanic newspaper El Especialito to defend himself.
His message? The officer is wrong, his political enemies are responsible, and somehow Brian Stack is the real victim.
But here’s the question: Has anyone ever heard Brian Stack admit he was wrong about anything?
A MAYOR WHO CANNOT ACCEPT A JURY’S VERDICT
The jury awarded Juan Estrella $853,000 in compensatory damages, with punitive damages still pending.
Yet Stack’s letter offers no acknowledgment of wrongdoing. Instead, he attacks the officer’s credibility, questions his motives, and describes the lawsuit as a financial opportunity, comparing it to an ATM machine.
Apparently, when a jury rules against Brian Stack, the problem isn’t his conduct. It’s everyone else.
And the mayor’s own letter raises more questions than it answers.
Stack claims Estrella’s disciplinary record prevented his promotion. But the very court transcript Stack published includes Estrella’s sworn testimony that former Police Chief Nichelle Luster did not want him promoted and that other supervisors with more serious disciplinary histories had received promotions.
Why highlight the testimony favorable to your defense while failing to address the testimony that challenges it?
Even the dates are wrong. Stack’s letter identifies September 6, 2026, as the testimony date, while the transcript identifies September 1.
For someone who chairs the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee, accuracy about court proceedings should not be optional.
POLITICAL SUPPORTERS, GOVERNMENT JOBS, AND STACK’S OWN WORDS
Perhaps the most revealing statement in Stack’s letter is his description of Estrella’s family:
“They were political supporters – I helped many of them with employment and other matters like I try to do for everyone.”
Read that again.
Political supporters. Employment assistance. All in the same sentence.
That statement alone proves political patronage, and certainly raises legitimate questions about how public employment opportunities are distributed in Union City.
How many municipal employees and Board of Education employees are political supporters of Brian Stack? How many were hired based strictly on qualifications? How many have political connections?
And what about politically connected individuals holding well-paid administrative positions, including Board of Education Secretary Justin Mercado? His qualifications, appointment history, and publicly funded compensation deserve examination, not assumptions.
Taxpayer-funded employment should be based on qualifications, not political loyalty.
Perhaps it is time to compare campaign contribution records, public payrolls, and government hiring records.
THE ELECTION EXCUSE THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE
Stack also suggests that the lawsuit was politically motivated because of his upcoming Senate reelection.
There’s just one inconvenient fact.
Estrella filed his lawsuit on April 20, 2022. Stack’s next Senate election is November 2027.
Are residents supposed to believe Estrella somehow orchestrated a lawsuit five years in advance, controlled the court calendar, and arranged for a jury verdict to arrive at a politically inconvenient moment?
How many elections have occurred since this lawsuit began?
The court system does not operate according to Brian Stack’s campaign schedule.
His attempt to portray this case as an election conspiracy is an insult to the intelligence of the public.
A SUDDEN CELEBRATION OF DOMINICAN SUPPORT?
Following the verdict, Stack also held a Hispanic Heritage celebration featuring public displays of political support, including signs emphasizing his relationship with the Dominican community.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with celebrating Hispanic or Dominican heritage.
But the timing deserves scrutiny.
After a jury found Stack liable for aiding and abetting discrimination involving a Dominican officer, public demonstrations of Dominican support suddenly became politically valuable.
Was this simply a cultural celebration, or another attempt to repair his damaged political image? Those in attendance of the event appear are mainly Board of Education employees and supporters instructed to attend as they do for every other political event hosted by Brian Stack.
The timing and political messaging are impossible to ignore.
Having Dominican friends, relatives, and supporters does not prove that someone could not have discriminated against a Dominican employee.
A jury already considered the evidence and reached its verdict.
NOW HIS MAILING HAS CREATED ANOTHER COURT CONTROVERSY
On October 2, 2026, attorneys representing Juan Estrella submitted a court application raising serious concerns about Stack’s mass mailing.
The problem?
The jury remained empaneled to consider punitive damages while Stack was distributing his version of the lawsuit throughout the 33rd Legislative District.
Estrella’s attorneys requested an investigation into whether jurors received the mailing and whether defense counsel participated in preparing or distributing it.
They also challenged statements in the letter that they characterized as inaccurate or misleading.
The filing does not establish that jurors were exposed or that misconduct occurred, and it does not document an issued cease-and-desist order. But the fact that the mailing prompted a formal request for judicial inquiry is significant.
Think about that.
Instead of allowing the remaining court proceedings to unfold without controversy, Stack’s political messaging has become another issue the judge has been asked to examine.
At what point does political damage control become more important to Brian Stack than respecting the judicial process?
THE TAXPAYERS KEEP PAYING WHILE STACK KEEPS DEFENDING HIMSELF
Stack complains that the lawsuit comes at the expense of Union City residents.
Then perhaps he should explain exactly how much taxpayer money has been spent defending this case.
How much has gone to outside attorneys? How much will an appeal cost? What portion of the verdict could ultimately be paid with public funds or insurance? And how much more could the pending punitive-damages proceedings add?
The exact taxpayer exposure remains to be established through public records.
But residents deserve a full accounting.
And while we’re discussing accountability, consider how many positions of influence Brian Stack holds.
Mayor. Public Safety Director. State Senator. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman. Political leader of Union City First.
Yet in his letter defending himself against a police discrimination verdict, he identifies himself simply as mayor.
Conveniently, the Public Safety Director title—the position most directly connected to police department oversight—is nowhere in the letter’s heading.
Coincidence? Perhaps. But it is certainly worth pointing out.
Maybe the problem with giving one politician so much authority is that nobody around him is willing to tell him when he’s wrong.
TWENTY-SIX YEARS AS MAYOR. NOT ONE ADMISSION OF ERROR?
Brian Stack has every legal right to challenge the verdict and defend himself.
But there is a difference between defending yourself in court and conducting a political campaign to discredit someone who prevailed before a jury.
His letter portrays political enemies as responsible. His supporters rush to defend him. His political organization distributes his explanation. And residents are asked to accept that everyone else is mistaken.
Meanwhile, the most important fact remains unchanged:
Eight jurors unanimously found Brian Stack liable for aiding and abetting discrimination.
No political mailing changes that.
No newspaper advertisement changes that.
No celebration or public endorsement changes that.
Stack may have spent 26 years building a political machine, but political power does not make someone infallible.
Union City needs qualified, independent leadership—not a system where one individual holds multiple positions of authority while surrounding himself with political loyalty.
Residents should demand transparency, independent oversight, fair public hiring, and a complete accounting of this litigation.
And they should save every political letter Stack sends. Put them side by side and look for the words that seem impossible for him to say:
“I was wrong.”
Stack signed his letter, “Your Friend.”
Well, Mayor Stack, real friends tell each other the truth.
A jury found you liable. Your political supporters cannot overturn that verdict with applause. And the people of Union City deserve accountability—not another excuse.
Twenty-six years as mayor, and somehow Brian Stack is never wrong. Funny how the taxpayers may still end up paying for the times he insists he was right.
⸻
Editorial commentary based on the September 2026 Estrella jury verdict, Brian Stack’s published political letter, the October 2–8, 2026 edition of El Especialito, and the October 2, 2026 court application in Juan Estrella v. City of Union City, Docket No. HUD-L-000064-23. Questions concerning political patronage, campaign motives, and public expenditures are presented as matters requiring further investigation
Discover more from Hudson County Truth
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL FINDS NO WRONGDOING FOR TWO UNION CITY POLICE OFFICERS. THE CITY CONTINUES RETALIATION
EL DESESPERADO CONTROL DE DAÑOS DE BRIAN STACK: UN JURADO LO DECLARÓ RESPONSABLE, PERO EL ALCALDE TODAVÍA SE NIEGA A ADMITIR QUE SE EQUIVOCÓ
BRIAN STACK’S DESPERATE DAMAGE CONTROL: A JURY FOUND HIM LIABLE, BUT THE MAYOR STILL REFUSES TO ADMIT HE WAS WRONG
Jimmy Davis Can’t Run From the Truth: The People Deserve to Know Who He Really Is
A Closer Look at Jamie Chebra: Former Jersey City EMS Leader’s Past and Present Under Scrutiny
BREAKING: Scandal Erupts Inside Hudson County Sheriff’s Office — Lt. Fedrow Found Guilty of Sexual Misconduct, County Officials Accused of Political Protection
-
Breaking News1 year agoJimmy Davis Can’t Run From the Truth: The People Deserve to Know Who He Really Is
-
Breaking News1 year agoA Closer Look at Jamie Chebra: Former Jersey City EMS Leader’s Past and Present Under Scrutiny
-
Breaking News1 year agoBREAKING: Scandal Erupts Inside Hudson County Sheriff’s Office — Lt. Fedrow Found Guilty of Sexual Misconduct, County Officials Accused of Political Protection
-
Breaking News2 years agoUNION CITY POLICE OFFICER FERNANDO MURO IS FAMOUS!
-
Breaking News2 years ago🔥🚔 BREAKING: UNION CITY POLICE CHIEF ANTHONY FACCHINI IS A DISGRACE! OFFICERS WANT HIM GONE IMMEDIATELY! 🚔🔥
-
Breaking News2 years agoA History Lesson of Corruption in Union City
-
Breaking News2 years agoRepublican Assembly Candidate Condemns Brian Stack Letter, Calls for Term Limits
-
Breaking News1 year ago📰 BREAKING: Barbara Pinzon Ousted in Union City Teachers Union Shake-Up – Juana Dominguez and Daniel Prusko Elected in Historic Shift Towards Transparency and Reform