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