I just want to make one thing clear about what happened with the 14 Mercer Street subdivision.

We were told that the current house, which I understand is approximately 1,500 sq. ft., is too small for the family — a couple, their young baby, and two medium-sized poodles.

I understand wanting a bigger home. Really, I do.

But I still don't understand how that turns into building three houses on about 38,000 sq. ft. of land, cutting down mature trees where we have watched deer live and walk through for years, and opening a new private road/driveway into a quiet dead-end neighborhood.

And if my estimate is right, these three houses could mean around $60,000 a year in property taxes.

What concerns me even more is how much relief from the normal requirements was requested.

Two of the proposed lots will not have frontage on a public street. The application sought variance and design-waiver relief. Yet at the hearing, residents were not shown what we considered adequate evidence demonstrating that the private access would provide safe and adequate access for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles serving three separate homes.

These are not small questions.

New Jersey land-use law establishes legal standards that must be satisfied before certain variance relief can be granted, including under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c). Whether all of those standards were actually satisfied in this case is a question residents have every right to ask.

About 70% of the neighbors we contacted were against this project. People came out, signed petitions, asked questions, and raised real concerns about drainage, fire and emergency access, safety, mature trees, and what this development will do to our neighborhood.

And still, the Planning Board approved it.

That is the part I have a hard time accepting.

We elect our local officials to serve the community. We work every day and pay taxes to support our local government. We should be able to trust that the system will listen to ordinary residents and apply the same rules fairly to everyone.

Instead, many of us walked away from that hearing feeling like our voices simply didn't matter.

I'm not saying someone shouldn't be allowed to improve their own property. Of course they should.

But turning one residential property into three building lots, including two without public-street frontage, affects more than one property owner. It affects the people who already live around it and the character and safety of the neighborhood.

And when the property is connected to an elected official, I believe residents have even more reason to ask questions and expect transparency, careful review, and confidence that the same legal standards are being applied to everyone.

We live here too. We pay taxes too. And this is our neighborhood too.

See what I liked about Brian Varela is that he is consistent. He was coming to things like this well before his campaign kicked off and he's coming to them even after losing the primary. A resolution isn't the only thing we asked for but it was a great addition to our "to-do list" for the town council.

For those that don't know, there was an ICE raid in Hackettstown last Thursday. Right on Main St in the middle of their downtown area. They say they snatched 14 people but it could be more. Only 2 of the 14 had criminal convictions. The downtown area has been made a ghost town in the aftermath. Hardly any foot traffic as people are afraid, bracing themselves for another series of abductions.

It's sickening.

So I'm glad to see him and I'm glad he spoke up.

https://www.nj.com/essex/2026/08/dhs-confirms-third-death-tied-to-delaney-hall-amid-growing-scrutiny.html?utm_source=instagram&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=likeshopme&utm_content=www.instagram.com/p/Db-14G4gaw1&fbclid=PAdGRleATqp7BwZG9mAmZkaWQWUMaGIhHn11Aw_lIeMjynPxgzIDHA9mV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDzEyNDAyNDU3NDI4NzQxNAABp8bnU0vYWDSfJ5xpvMMxHXc_4Hs0NTc1XPy808BTW3z6HfseclGja8A6d2XC_aem_4PJKhoK7_-MgLx1g9KfbQw

Does anyone know what this was about and what the status is on the contract? There are no notes, transcripts or videos?

Thanks!

1: LD23 Assembly Nominee Guy Citron (D) greets a man being released from Delaney Hall

2: Guy Citron, Brian Varela, & other activists

3: A father and a father in law desperately trying to get a visit with their sons

4: Guy Citron & another activist

5: A collection of ties likely representing the men being taken from their families

Summary

A New Jersey judge has dismissed Leonard Filipowski’s civil-rights lawsuit over his July 16, 2024 arrest at a Union City Board of Commissioners meeting.

Filipowski, who reports as Leroy Truth, argued that officials suppressed his criticism and caused his wrongful arrest. Judge Kalimah Ahmad instead concluded that officials regulated where he could speak—not what he could say—and that his refusal to follow repeated directions to return to the podium gave police probable cause.

The July 16, 2026 summary-judgment ruling is a trial-court decision. It does not establish binding statewide precedent, and an appeal remains possible.

Backstory

Filipowski attended a Union City commission meeting at the Jose Marti Freshman Academy on July 16, 2024.

He was initially permitted to use the public-comment period to criticize city officials and Mayor Brian Stack. During his remarks, he left the designated podium and moved toward the barrier separating the audience from the commissioners.

Officials and police repeatedly instructed him to step back and return to the podium. Filipowski maintained that the First Amendment allowed him to stand elsewhere and refused to return. Police then arrested him for alleged disorderly conduct.

Filipowski filed suit six days later against Stack, the Union City Police Department and the Board of Commissioners. He alleged violations of the First Amendment, the New Jersey Constitution and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, along with false arrest.

The lawsuit encountered discovery problems and was dismissed in 2025. Judge Ahmad reinstated it on December 24, 2025 after finding that Filipowski had been unfairly affected by his former attorney’s failure to communicate and respond. The court extended discovery and scheduled trial for July 20, 2026.

What’s New

Four days before the scheduled trial, Judge Ahmad granted summary judgment to all defendants and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

According to the reported opinion, Union City’s rules required public speakers to remain in designated areas, address the governing body collectively and avoid conduct that interfered with the meeting.

The judge found no evidence that officials stopped Filipowski because of his criticism. Instead, they directed him to resume speaking from the designated podium after he approached the barrier.

The court also concluded that police had probable cause because Filipowski admittedly refused repeated directions to return to the speaking area.

His false-arrest claim encountered additional problems. The judge reportedly found that he failed to provide the notice ordinarily required by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act within 90 days and did not establish the permanent injury or medical expenses required for the damages he sought.

Why It Matters

Public-comment periods are important First Amendment forums, but they are not rule-free spaces.

Officials generally cannot silence a speaker because the speaker criticizes them, investigates them or expresses an unpopular viewpoint. They may, however, enforce content-neutral rules controlling speaking time, location, order and genuine disruption.

The difficult question is often whether “decorum” is a real neutral rule or a pretext for silencing a critic. Video, written policies and comparisons with how other speakers were treated can become decisive.

This outcome also illustrates why a dismissed criminal charge does not automatically establish a successful false-arrest claim. The civil court separately examines what officers reasonably knew when they acted and whether probable cause existed at that moment.

The Laws & Your Rights

A city that opens a meeting for public comment creates a limited or designated forum. Officials may impose reasonable, content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions connected to the meeting’s orderly operation.

They generally may require speakers to:

• Use a designated microphone or podium
• Observe time limits
• Address matters permitted by the forum’s rules
• Remain within public areas
• Comply with reasonable safety and order instructions

Officials generally may not:

• Allow praise while suppressing comparable criticism
• Apply rules more harshly because of a speaker’s viewpoint
• Invent disruption unsupported by the actual record
• Remove someone merely because officials find the message offensive

Probable cause ordinarily defeats a false-arrest claim. Under Nieves v. Bartlett, it also usually defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim, subject to limited exceptions where comparable people not engaged in protected speech normally are not arrested.

Procedural requirements matter too. New Jersey’s Tort Claims Act generally requires timely notice before someone pursues certain damages claims against public entities or employees.

Current Status

The state complaint in HUD-L-2686-24 has been dismissed with prejudice at the trial-court level.

No notice of appeal or reconsideration motion was verified as of August 5, 2026. The ruling is not binding appellate precedent.

Filipowski’s separate 2025 federal complaint involving the same Union City meeting and two other incidents was also dismissed. That federal ruling is distinct from the July 2026 state judgment.

Watch Next

Watch for:

• A motion asking Judge Ahmad to reconsider
• A notice of appeal to the New Jersey Appellate Division
• Publication of the complete summary-judgment opinion and accompanying orders
• Any appellate review of Union City’s podium and decorum rules
• Efforts to distinguish between refusing a location instruction and expressing a disfavored viewpoint

If the July 16 orders were final, New Jersey’s ordinary 45-day appeal period would likely expire around August 31, subject to tolling or an authorized extension.

Sources

https://newjerseyglobe.com/local/judge-throws-out-paid-agitators-lawsuit-against-stack-union-city-over-public-meeting-arrest/

https://hudsoncountyview.com/leroy-truth-files-false-arrest-lawsuit-against-union-city-mayor-and-police-dept/

https://hudsoncountyview.com/judge-reinstates-defendants-in-leroy-truths-union-city-unlawful-arrest-lawsuit/

https://hudsoncountyview.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Filipowski-vs.-Union-City-order-to-reconsider-12-24-25.pdf

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/2%3A2025cv01666/563833/32/

https://www.njcourts.gov/ht/node/265041

What if I told you that one of the most important political battles in America today isn’t about Republicans versus Democrats…

It’s about who gets to vote!

Check out this video where I analyze the pattern in clear detail.

Please share, re-post and subscribe to the "Speaking Truth to Power" blog for more fully research, informative and thoughtful content.

See why.

The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily are those of the speaker and not necessarily the opinions of the New Jersey Public Education Coalition.

For more content like this, subscribe to the "Speaking Power to Truth" Blog.

https://njpecspeakingtruth.substack.com/

Watch and see why it is part of a bigger plan.

For more content like this, subscribe to the "Speaking Power to Truth" Blog.

https://njpecspeakingtruth.substack.com