El oficial David Tafur declara en el juicio de Juan Estrella contra Union City

El juicio de Juan Estrella contra la Ciudad de Union City está levantando serias preguntas sobre discriminación, disciplina y liderazgo dentro del Departamento de Policía.

Y la jueza Kalimah Ahmad tomó la decisión correcta al permitir que el oficial David Tafur testificara ante el jurado.

Ahora el jurado pudo escuchar directamente al hombre que dice haber escuchado personalmente una declaración muy preocupante de la exjefa de Policía Nichelle Luster.

“YO SÉ LO QUE ESCUCHÉ”

Anteriormente, Estrella había declarado que Tafur le contó que Luster supuestamente había comparado a los dominicanos con “animales” durante un Desfile Dominicano en Union City.

Pero ahora Tafur mismo subió al estrado y declaró bajo juramento.

Según Hudson County View, Tafur dijo que estaba aproximadamente a cinco pies de Luster cuando escuchó el comentario.

Tafur fue claro:

“Yo sé lo que escuché.”

También explicó que no lo reportó en ese momento porque era joven y tenía miedo de poner en peligro su trabajo.

Estas acusaciones son extremadamente serias.

Cualquier comentario degradante contra los dominicanos debe ser condenado.

Ningún jefe de Policía, funcionario público o empleado del gobierno debe hablar de esa manera sobre la comunidad que tiene la responsabilidad de servir.

¿POR QUÉ IMPORTA TANTO EL TESTIMONIO DE TAFUR?

Tafur también habló sobre cómo él y Estrella fueron disciplinados después de participar en el mismo incidente.

Según su testimonio, Tafur recibió una reprimenda verbal mientras que Estrella recibió una suspensión.

Tafur es colombiano.

Estrella es dominicano.

Y Tafur dijo algo muy importante sobre lo que hicieron ambos oficiales:

“Él no hizo nada diferente.”

Entonces la pregunta es sencilla:

¿Por qué dos oficiales involucrados en el mismo incidente recibieron castigos diferentes?

Eso es precisamente parte de lo que Estrella está alegando en este caso: que recibió un trato diferente por ser dominicano.

Union City niega las acusaciones y argumenta que el historial disciplinario de Estrella justificó las diferencias en disciplina y en las decisiones de promoción.

Ahora será el jurado quien decida..

UNION CITY SIGUE HABLANDO DEL HISTORIAL DE ESTRELLA

El abogado defensor de Union City, Phillip Morrow, ha cuestionado repetidamente a Estrella sobre sus problemas disciplinarios anteriores y los acuerdos que firmó.

La Ciudad tiene derecho a presentar esa defensa.

Pero existe otra pregunta que el historial disciplinario de Estrella simplemente no puede contestar:

¿Dijo o no dijo la futura jefa de Policía esas palabras sobre los dominicanos?

El historial disciplinario de Estrella no determina lo que Tafur escuchó.

Tafur declaró que estaba allí.

Declaró que escuchó personalmente el comentario.

Y lo hizo bajo juramento y frente al jurado.

¿Y QUÉ PASA CON EL ALCALDE BRIAN STACK?

El alcalde Brian Stack también es acusado en este caso y ha servido como Director de Seguridad Pública de Union City.

Según testimonios anteriores reportados durante el juicio, Stack indicó que dependía de las recomendaciones del jefe de Policía para las promociones.

Luster, por su parte, declaró que Stack tenía la autoridad final para decidir las promociones y que ella hacía recomendaciones.

Entonces los residentes tienen derecho a preguntar:

¿Quién era realmente responsable?

Si la jefa recomendaba a quién promover y el Director de Seguridad Pública seguía esas recomendaciones, ¿qué tipo de revisión independiente realmente existía?

Estas son preguntas legítimas que los residentes de Union City merecen ver contestadas.

LA JUEZA HIZO BIEN EN PERMITIR ESTE TESTIMONIO

La decisión de la jueza Ahmad permitió que el jurado escuchara directamente a Tafur.

Eso era importante.

No se trata simplemente de Estrella diciendo lo que otra persona supuestamente le contó.

Tafur apareció personalmente.

Juró decir la verdad.

Fue interrogado por ambas partes.

HABLA LA ABOGADA DE ESTRELLA

Cuando la abogada Yasmin Estrella salía del tribunal después del testimonio del oficial David Tafur, dio una declaración a los medios:

“Esperamos que el jurado haya visto lo que debió haberse visto hace mucho tiempo. Como testificó hoy el oficial Tafur, la verdad tenía que decirse, y hoy se dijo en el tribunal y el jurado la escuchó.”

Los medios le preguntaron a la abogada de Estrella:

“¿Qué fue lo que dijo?”

La abogada respondió:

“‘Estos dominicanos son animales.’ Esto es lo que… la jefa Luster… esto es lo que la exjefa de Policía de Union City piensa sobre los dominicanos. Espero que la gente de Union City esté prestando atención a este juicio.”

UNION CITY DEBE PRESTAR ATENCIÓN

Este caso ya no se trata solamente de una promoción a sargento.

Se están haciendo preguntas serias sobre discriminación, disciplina, promociones y liderazgo dentro del Departamento de Policía de Union City.

Un oficial actual de Union City declaró bajo juramento que una mujer que posteriormente llegó a convertirse en jefa de Policía hizo un comentario degradante sobre los dominicanos.

Eso merece atención.

La comunidad dominicana es una parte fundamental de Union City y del Condado de Hudson.

Nadie debe ser tratado como inferior por su nacionalidad.

Y hablar una y otra vez del historial disciplinario de Juan Estrella no hace desaparecer el testimonio de David Tafur.

La Ciudad tiene derecho a defenderse.

Los abogados tienen derecho a cuestionar a los testigos.

Pero los residentes también tienen derecho a exigir respuestas de Nichelle Luster, Brian Stack, el Departamento de Policía y la Ciudad de Union City.

Todavía no existe un veredicto final.

Pero ahora existe una diferencia muy importante:

Juan Estrella ya no es simplemente quien dice lo que Tafur le contó.

David Tafur llegó al tribunal.

Subió al estrado.

Declaró bajo juramento.

Y frente al jurado dijo:

“YO SÉ LO QUE ESCUCHÉ.”

Ahora le corresponde al jurado decidir.

The post JEFA DE LA POLICIA DE UNION CITY DICE “LOS DOMINICANOS SON ANIMALES” appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

Officer David Tafur takes the stand in Juan Estrella’s discrimination trial

The discrimination trial of retired Union City Police Officer Juan Estrella against the City of Union City and other defendants has produced some of its most serious testimony yet.

And Superior Court Judge Kalimah Ahmad made the right decision by allowing current Union City Police Officer David Tafur to testify before the jury.

Before Tafur appeared before the jury, Judge Ahmad conducted an evidentiary hearing concerning proposed testimony from Tafur and another officer. She ultimately permitted Tafur to testify while excluding the other officer’s proposed testimony.

That ruling allowed jurors to hear Tafur’s account directly rather than simply hearing what Estrella said Tafur had previously told him.

“I KNOW WHAT I HEARD”

Earlier in the trial, Estrella testified that Tafur told him that former Union City Police Chief Nichelle Luster had referred to Dominicans as “animals” at a Dominican Day Parade.

Then Tafur himself took the witness stand.

According to Hudson County View’s reporting, Tafur testified under oath that he was approximately five feet away from Luster at a Dominican Day Parade before the COVID-19 pandemic when he heard her equate Dominicans with “animals.”

Tafur stood by his recollection:

“I know what I heard.”

He testified that the parade had not yet begun, making it possible for him to hear the remark. He also explained why he did not report it at the time: He was young and did not want to jeopardize his career.

Tafur further testified that hearing such a remark made him wonder what was being said about other Hispanics.

The allegation is disturbing.

If a jury ultimately finds that a person who rose to become Union City’s chief of police made such a statement, Union City residents deserve answers about how someone holding those views could have reached the highest position in their Police Department.

No community—Dominican or otherwise—should be spoken about that way by a public official entrusted with authority over its residents.

THE DISCIPLINE QUESTION JUST GOT BIGGER

Tafur’s testimony was not limited to Luster’s alleged remark.

He also testified about an incident that involved both himself and Estrella.

According to Tafur, the two officers handled the same incident involving a woman who alleged racial bias after receiving a parking ticket. Tafur testified that he received an oral reprimand while Estrella was suspended.

Tafur is Colombian. Estrella is Dominican.

And Tafur told the jury about their conduct:

“He didn’t do anything different.”

That testimony goes directly to an important question raised by Estrella’s case: Was discipline applied consistently?

Estrella contends that his disciplinary history was used against him to deny him promotion to sergeant while non-Dominican officers were treated differently.

Union City disputes that allegation. The defense maintains that Estrella’s disciplinary record legitimately distinguished him from other officers and has argued that progressive discipline explains why Tafur and Estrella received different penalties.

That is precisely why Tafur’s testimony matters. The jury now has a firsthand witness who participated in one of the incidents being used to compare the treatment of the two officers.

UNION CITY KEEPS RETURNING TO ESTRELLA’S DISCIPLINE

Union City’s defense attorney, Phillip Morrow, has repeatedly examined Estrella’s disciplinary history and settlement agreements.

The defense is entitled to present that evidence, particularly because Union City maintains that discipline—not Estrella’s Dominican national origin—explains why he was bypassed for promotion.

But disciplinary history does not answer a separate and deeply troubling question raised by Tafur’s testimony:

Did the future chief of the Union City Police Department actually make the alleged remark about Dominicans?

Whether Estrella had previous discipline cannot determine whether Tafur heard what he says he heard.

And Tafur did not merely repeat a rumor on the witness stand.

According to the reporting, he testified that he was there, approximately five feet away, and personally heard the remark.

That testimony now belongs before the jury alongside the defense’s evidence.

MAYOR BRIAN STACK ALSO HAS QUESTIONS TO ANSWER

Mayor Brian Stack is not merely a spectator in this case. He is a named defendant and also served as Union City’s Director of Public Safety.

Stack previously testified that he relied upon the police chief’s recommendations concerning promotions.

When questioned about what independent review he conducted concerning Estrella, Stack repeatedly emphasized that he followed the chief’s recommendation.

Luster, meanwhile, testified that Stack was ultimately the authority who decided promotions and that she made recommendations.

That creates an obvious question for Union City residents:

Who was actually accountable for making sure promotion decisions were fair?

If the chief made the recommendation and the Public Safety Director routinely followed it, residents have every right to scrutinize how meaningful the oversight really was.

THIS IS WHY TAFUR NEEDED TO TESTIFY

Judge Ahmad’s decision allowed the jury to hear evidence directly from the person who says he witnessed the alleged remark.

That is exactly where this evidence belongs: in the courtroom, under oath, subject to cross-examination and evaluated by the jury.

Tafur was questioned by both sides.

The defense challenged his credibility and brought up that he is currently on restricted duty and has been the subject of an investigation that was referred back to the municipality.

Tafur nevertheless testified that he has no personal financial interest in Estrella’s lawsuit and expects possible retaliation because of his testimony.

ESTRELLA ATTORNEY SPEAKS

As Attorney Yasmin Estrella was exiting the court after Tafur’s testimony, she released a statement to the media stating,

“Well we are hope the jury saw what should have been seen a long time ago. As Officer Tafur testified today, the truth needed to be said and it was said today in court and the jury heard it.”

The media asked the attorney for Estrella,

“what did he say?” Attorney for Estrella responded,

“These Dominicans are animals, this is what…Chief Luster…this is what, the chief of police, former chief of police from Union City thinks about Dominicans. I hope the people of Union City are watching this trial.”

UNION CITY RESIDENTS SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION

This case is bigger than whether one retired police officer should have received a sergeant’s promotion.

It raises questions about discipline, promotions, national-origin discrimination, accountability and leadership inside the Union City Police Department.

A current Union City police officer has now testified under oath that a woman who later became the department’s chief made a degrading remark about Dominicans.

That allegation should be condemned, not minimized.

Dominicans make up an important part of Union City and Hudson County. No resident should have to wonder whether the people exercising governmental authority over them harbor contempt for their nationality or ethnicity.

And no amount of discussion about Juan Estrella’s old disciplinary record makes Tafur’s testimony disappear.

The defense has every right to challenge Estrella’s allegations and Tafur’s credibility.

But the public has every right to ask hard questions of former Chief Nichelle Luster, Mayor and Public Safety Director Brian Stack, the Union City Police Department, the City of Union City and the attorneys defending the City’s position.

The jury has not yet rendered its verdict.

But one thing has changed dramatically:

The jury no longer has to rely solely on Juan Estrella saying what David Tafur told him.

David Tafur walked into court himself.

He took the oath.

He faced cross-examination.

And he told the jury:

“I know what I heard.”

Now the jury—and the people of Union City—can judge the testimony for themselves.

The post UNION CITY POLICE CHIEF SAID “DOMINICANS ARE ANIMALS” appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

The Juan Estrella v. City of Union City trial has reached a critical moment. Union City and its attorneys are fighting to prevent Union City Police Officer David Tafur from giving testimony that could be extremely damaging to the City’s defense.

According to the City’s own court filing, Tafur is expected to testify that he “was present when Chief Luster made a derogatory comment about Dominicans.” Tafur is also expected to testify about differences between discipline imposed upon him and Juan Estrella. 

This is a discrimination case. Juan Estrella alleges he was passed over for promotion because of his Dominican national origin. If an officer is prepared to testify under oath that a former police chief involved in this controversy made a derogatory statement about Dominicans, the jury deserves to hear him.

Why is the City fighting so hard to keep Tafur off the witness stand?

City attorney Philip Morrow is asking Judge Kalimah Ahmad to prevent Tafur from giving this testimony. The defense argues that the alleged statement was not disclosed during discovery and characterizes Tafur as effectively a “surprise witness” concerning that statement. 

But why should the answer be to silence the witness?

Put Tafur on the stand. Let him take an oath. Let him explain exactly what he heard, when he heard it, where it happened, and who was present.

Then cross-examine him.

Let Nichelle Luster respond.

And most importantly, let the jury decide who is telling the truth.

Instead, Union City is asking the judge to make sure the jury never hears this testimony in the first place.

That should trouble the public.

Then comes the threat of discipline

The City’s own filing attacks Tafur personally and tells the court about his disciplinary history and an Attorney General investigation. Most strikingly, the City’s attorneys tell the judge that Tafur “faces the possibility of a severe disciplinary sanction.” 

The timing and appearance are disturbing.

Here is a current Union City police officer prepared to give testimony potentially harmful to Union City’s defense—and the City’s attorneys are simultaneously reminding the court that this employee could face severe discipline.

According to insiders who have spoken with Tafur, City attorneys also attempted to contact him and tell him that he was personally being represented by the City’s attorneys. Tafur rejected that representation and reportedly viewed those attempts as intimidation.

There are now serious concerns that the City administration and Union City Police Department, including through Chief Walter Laurencio, could use additional disciplinary proceedings against Tafur in retaliation for his willingness to testify.

If government discipline is being used—or threatened—to pressure a witness because of testimony that could damage the government in court, that would be outrageous.

The City’s own argument shows why Tafur matters

Union City itself acknowledges that the ultimate issue remaining for trial is whether Estrella was denied promotion because of his Dominican national origin. 

The defense also acknowledges that Estrella’s disciplinary history is at the center of its explanation for why he was bypassed and that the issue includes whether that stated reason was actually a pretext for discrimination. 

So imagine being a juror.

You are being asked to determine whether national-origin discrimination played a role in a promotional decision, while an active police officer is allegedly prepared to testify that the former chief made a derogatory statement about the very national-origin group at issue.

Why shouldn’t that jury hear what Tafur has to say?

The City’s attorneys can attack his credibility in front of the jury. That is what cross-examination is for.

This is exactly why the public is losing confidence

The optics could hardly be worse.

The City wants potentially damaging testimony excluded. Its attorney attacks the witness’s credibility before he testifies. The City’s filing raises the possibility of severe discipline against that same officer. And now there are allegations of attempts to pressure or intimidate Tafur while he prepares to testify.

Enough.

Union City government and the Union City Police Department should not operate as though employees must choose between protecting their careers and telling the truth in a courtroom.

If Tafur is willing to testify under oath, let him testify.

If his testimony is false, expose it through evidence.

If it is true, the jury deserves to know.

The conduct of the City’s attorneys deserves scrutiny

We are also deeply disturbed by the allegations surrounding City attorney Philip Morrow’s handling of Tafur.

Attorneys are advocates, and aggressive advocacy is part of litigation. But there is a line between aggressively defending a client and improperly interfering with or intimidating a witness.

Anyone who possesses firsthand evidence of unethical conduct should consider submitting that evidence to the appropriate attorney-ethics authorities, the appropriate bar association and allowing them to determine whether professional rules were violated.

Nobody—attorney, police chief, mayor, or municipal government—should be above scrutiny.

Let the jury hear the evidence

Judge Kalimah Ahmad has an important evidentiary decision to make.

Our position is simple:

LET DAVID TAFUR TESTIFY.

Let the City’s lawyers question him.

Let the plaintiff’s lawyers question him.

Let Nichelle Luster defend herself against the allegation.

And then let twelve jurors decide what happened.

We believe the evidence presented by Juan Estrella deserves to reach the jury, and we are confident that when the jury is allowed to hear the complete story, it will ultimately side with the plaintiff.

Union City should stop trying to control what the jury gets to hear and start answering the evidence.

LET TAFUR TESTIFY.

The post LET OFFICER TAFUR TESTIFY — WHAT IS UNION CITY SO AFRAID OF? appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

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.

The post The Lawsuit of the Decade: Ret. Officer Juan Estrella v. Union City & Brian Stack appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

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 post Transparency Means Answering Questions, Not Avoiding Them appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

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.

The post Social Media Channel, Predator Poacher, Poaches a Predator in North Bergen Who Works for an Elementary School appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

This is not about political parties or personalities. It is about the integrity of our courts.

The disciplinary history of Carlos Acosta is not a rumor or political talking point—it is a matter of public record. The Supreme Court of New Jersey suspended him from the practice of law after findings that included conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, gross neglect, a pattern of neglect, lack of diligence, and failure to expedite legal matters. Those findings speak for themselves.

Judges are expected to meet the highest ethical standards because the public entrusts them with decisions affecting people’s liberty, property, and constitutional rights. When an attorney has previously been disciplined for misconduct of this nature, it is entirely reasonable for the public to question whether that individual should again serve on the bench.

Mayor Brian Stack also deserves scrutiny for his role in judicial appointments within Union City.

As both the Mayor of Union City and a New Jersey State Senator who serves as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Stack occupies one of the most influential positions in New Jersey government regarding the judicial system. While the Senate Judiciary Committee does not appoint municipal judges, it plays a significant role in reviewing nominees to many judicial and prosecutorial positions throughout the State. That makes public confidence in his judgment especially important.

If reports are accurate that Carlos Acosta will not ultimately return as Union City’s Chief Municipal Judge after initially being selected, that decision raises an obvious question: what changed?

If concerns about public confidence or Acosta’s disciplinary history ultimately caused the appointment not to move forward, those concerns existed from the very beginning. They were matters of public record before any appointment was announced.

Public officials should exercise careful judgment before making appointments to positions of public trust. Judicial appointments should strengthen confidence in our courts—not create controversy that could have been avoided.

Citizens deserve transparency regarding how judicial candidates are evaluated. What standards are applied? How are prior disciplinary findings weighed? What assurances are given to the public that ethics and integrity remain the highest priorities?

These are fair questions, not political attacks.

The people of Union City deserve judges whose integrity is beyond question. The judiciary depends on public confidence, and that confidence is earned through accountability, transparency, and sound judgment.

Regardless of political affiliation, every resident should agree on one principle: our courts should never become the subject of avoidable controversy because of appointments that undermine public trust.

Our justice system functions best when the public believes those who sit in judgment have demonstrated the highest ethical character. That standard should never be compromised.

The post Controversial Judge Carlos Acosta; Wrong Choice for Union City Court. appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

According to numerous accounts shared by current and former sheriff’s officers, the Hudson County Sheriff’s Office is experiencing a troubling period under the leadership of Sheriff James “Jimmy” Davis and the administration of County Executive Craig Guy. The consistency of the concerns being raised should not simply be dismissed.

Perhaps most alarming are reports that some officers have chosen to leave law enforcement altogether or have enlisted in the United States military as a means of escaping what they describe as a politically hostile work environment. If true, that should concern every taxpayer in Hudson County.

Law enforcement agencies across the country face recruitment and retention challenges. Experienced officers are difficult to replace. When trained personnel voluntarily leave an agency in large numbers, it raises legitimate questions about workplace culture, leadership, compensation, and employee morale.

The concerns reportedly extend beyond pay. Officers have allegedly described a workplace where political favoritism, retaliation, and fear of speaking out have become commonplace. Whether those allegations ultimately prove true or not, perception matters. An agency cannot effectively serve the public when its own members believe they are not being treated fairly.

What makes the situation even more troubling is the contrast between campaign promises and current reports. During the 2025 sheriff’s race, supporters of Jimmy Davis argued that new leadership would restore morale, professionalism, and respect within the Sheriff’s Office. Public endorsements from law enforcement organizations praised Davis as someone who would support officers and improve working conditions. (New Jersey Globe⁠)

Now, only months into the new administration, questions are reportedly being raised by officers who expected meaningful change. If morale is declining rather than improving, Hudson County residents deserve answers.

County Executive Craig Guy cannot escape scrutiny either. As the chief executive of county government, he ultimately oversees the administration responsible for funding and supporting county departments. If staffing shortages, retention problems, and employee dissatisfaction are becoming widespread, county leadership has a responsibility to investigate the causes and address them before the situation worsens.

The public should not view this solely as an employment issue. Every resignation represents the loss of experience, training, and institutional knowledge. Every vacancy places additional burdens on remaining officers. Every decline in morale has the potential to affect public service.

Hudson County residents deserve a Sheriff’s Office where officers want to stay, where employees feel valued, and where promotions, assignments, and opportunities are based on merit rather than politics.

If these reports are alleged through their PowerDMS systems where internal memos are published.

Either way, silence is not a solution.

The people of Hudson County deserve answers. More importantly, the men and women who wear the badge deserve leadership that earns their confidence, not leadership that drives them away.

The post Leaving the Badge Behind: Officers Report Hostile Political Workplace, Seek New Futures in the Military appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

The City says the Bruce D. Walter Pool passed inspection and received a satisfactory rating. At the same time, complaints were filed raising concerns about ventilation, humidity, water leaks, maintenance issues, and other conditions inside the building. An engineering review even recommended that some of those concerns receive further evaluation.

So who are residents supposed to believe?

What makes this situation even more frustrating is that many people feel like Union City is run by the same political insiders who always seem to end up on the same side, no matter how bitter their battles were in the past.

Brian Stack built his political career by taking on former Mayor Rudy Garcia. The fight between the two men helped reshape Union City politics and eventually led to Garcia leaving office and Stack becoming mayor.

Fast forward to today, and Rudy Garcia’s law firm, Dunkin & Dunkin LLC, is representing the City in this matter.

For residents watching from the outside, it’s hard not to notice the irony. The political enemies of yesterday now appear connected through City business while taxpayers are left asking questions about conditions inside a public facility.

Then there is Justin Mercado and the rest of the City’s leadership. Residents deserve to know who is responsible for making sure public buildings are properly maintained and why concerns raised by employees and members of the public continue to generate controversy.

Adding even more questions to the situation are anonymous reports that concerns about the facility have allegedly reached OSHA and PEOSH, the federal and state agencies responsible for workplace safety in public-sector / private workplaces. If employees feel the need to take their concerns outside City Hall, that should be a warning sign to City officials.

Whether those reports result in any formal action remains to be seen. But many residents are asking why workers and members of the public feel they have to go outside the City government in the first place.

The bigger issue is trust.

For years, Union City’s political establishment has told residents that everything is under control. Yet every time another controversy surfaces, the public is told not to worry, not to ask questions, and to simply trust the people in charge.

That approach is getting old.

If the facility is safe, release the reports.

If the concerns are unfounded, show the evidence.

If repairs are needed, explain the plan.

Residents should not have to rely on rumors, leaks, and political insiders to learn what is happening inside a public building paid for by taxpayers.

At the end of the day, this is about more than a pool.

It is about transparency, accountability, and whether the people running Union City are willing to answer tough questions instead of expecting the public to simply take their word for it.

The post Union City Pool Controversy; The Return of Former Mayor Rudy Garcia appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

In announcing his candidacy, Eliopoulos presented himself as an educator, union representative, and the son of working-class immigrants who understands the everyday challenges facing residents throughout Hudson County and portions of Essex County. His campaign message focuses on rising costs, housing affordability, education, and what he describes as the need for greater accountability in Washington.

For many voters, the significance of Eliopoulos’ candidacy goes beyond policy positions. It represents a direct challenge to the longstanding political establishment that has dominated Hudson County politics for decades.

Critics of Congressman Menendez have long argued that his political rise benefited from his father, a disgraced former US Senator convicted and sentenced of corruption charges, Bob Menendez; and connections within one of New Jersey’s most influential political machine networks. Those critics contend that voters deserve a competitive election centered on ideas, accomplishments, and vision rather than political lineage. Supporters of Menendez strongly disagree and point to his work in Congress and public service record. But that record doesn’t show any real public service before entering Congress.

What makes Eliopoulos particularly interesting as a challenger is the political reality of the district. While the 8th Congressional District is heavily Democratic, there are substantial numbers of independent voters throughout the region. With no Republican candidate expected to be a major factor in the race, Eliopoulos has an opportunity to appeal to independents, moderates, dissatisfied Democrats, and voters looking for an alternative to traditional party machine politics.

His campaign’s grassroots message is likely to resonate with residents frustrated by rising taxes, housing costs, and concerns about whether elected officials remain connected to the communities they represent. By emphasizing his background in education and organized labor, Eliopoulos is attempting to position himself as a candidate focused on working families rather than political insiders.

The challenge ahead remains enormous. Defeating an incumbent member of Congress is never easy, particularly in a district where the Democratic Party maintains a significant advantage. Yet history has shown that voters occasionally embrace outsiders when they believe the political machine system has become too comfortable with the status quo.

While Rob focuses on running an anti Trump campaign and only focuses on climbing an entitled political ladder like an inheritance from his father  , Eliopoulos recognizes that a campaign through tour CD-8 needs to focus on skyrocketing state taxes which affect many renters and much more issues that true affects hard working families. And hard working is what Rob Menendez doesn’t know, especially being given everything by his father.

Whether Eliopoulos can translate his message into a successful campaign remains to be seen. What is certain is that his candidacy ensures voters in the 8th Congressional District will have a choice this November. For those seeking an alternative to Hudson County’s traditional political machine power structure, Ari Eliopoulos is positioning himself as that alternative.

Eliopoulos already has the backing of the Hudson, Essex and Union County GOPs.

As the campaign unfolds, voters will ultimately decide whether they prefer continuity with the current representation or a new direction offered by an independent challenger seeking to disrupt the established political order.

The post A New Voice Challenges the Hudson County Political Establishment appeared first on Hudson County Truth.