NEWARK, NJ—The Newark Public Safety Department is seeking assistance in locating 40-year-old Kiki Clark for questioning about an aggravated assault shooting that occurred on Monday, May 13.
The incident took place at approximately 3:55 a.m., where a victim was shot in the leg at an unspecified location. The victim was subsequently transported to University Hospital.
Clark is described as a white female, 5 feet 6 inches tall, with brown hair and hazel eyes.
Public Safety Director Fritz G. Fragé has urged anyone with information about Clark’s whereabouts to contact the Newark Police Division’s 24-hour Crime Stopper tip line at 1-877-NWK-TIPS (1-877-695-8477).
All tips received can be anonymous and may qualify for a reward. Information can also be submitted via the Police Division’s website.
- Federal Court Tosses New Jersey Family Court Decision That Left Defendant Destitute
Photo: #post_seo_titleA South Jersey man’s lawsuit against former Attorney General Matthew Platkin and others was dismissed after a federal judge ruled the court cannot act as an appeals court for state family court decisions.
CAMDEN, N.J. — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a New Jersey man who sought to challenge a family court ruling, finding that federal district courts do not have the authority to overturn state court decisions.
U.S. District Judge Karen M. Williams dismissed the complaint filed by Brian Heath against New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin and other defendants, though the dismissal was issued without prejudice, allowing Heath an opportunity to amend his filing.
Key Points
• A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against Attorney General Matthew Platkin and others.
• The plaintiff asked the court to reverse actions taken by family court.
• The court ruled federal district courts cannot review or overturn state court judgments.
The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s Camden Vicinage, was reviewed after Heath applied to proceed without paying filing fees.
Court records show Heath reported having no monthly income while facing approximately $2,780 in monthly expenses. He also disclosed ownership of a home valued at about $79,000 and a vehicle. Based on those financial circumstances, the court granted his request to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff Sought Family Court Reversal
According to the court’s opinion, Heath filed his complaint in January and asked the federal court to “reverse what Family Court did by violating my Rights.”
Judge Williams determined that request placed the lawsuit squarely within a long-established legal doctrine that limits federal court jurisdiction over state court decisions.
Court Cites Jurisdiction Limits
The opinion relied on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents federal district courts from acting as appellate courts reviewing judgments issued by state courts.
“Federal district courts possess only original jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction over state-court decisions,” the court wrote. The opinion further noted that the authority to review and overturn a state court judgment “rests solely with the United States Supreme Court.”
Because Heath’s complaint sought relief that would require the federal court to review a state court ruling, the judge concluded the claims could not proceed.
Plaintiff Given 30 Days to Amend
Although the complaint was dismissed, the court did not permanently close the case.
Judge Williams ordered the dismissal without prejudice and granted Heath 30 days to amend his pleadings to address the deficiencies identified in the opinion. If no amended filing is submitted, the court said the case may be closed.
The decision was issued Thursday in Camden federal court.
- Is New Jersey’s Rail System Ready for World Cup Traffic? State Lawmakers Call for Solutions
Less than a day after sending a letter to federal transportation officials, Monmouth County legislators met with Amtrak leadership and pushed for improved reliability on the Northeast Corridor before World Cup crowds arrive.
MIDDLETOWN, N.J. — Three New Jersey lawmakers say they secured commitments from Amtrak to prioritize NJ TRANSIT riders and strengthen operations along the Northeast Corridor after raising concerns about recurring rail delays just days before World Cup events begin in the region.
Sen. Declan O’Scanlon, Assemblywoman Vicky Flynn, and Assemblyman Gerry Scharfenberger announced Thursday that they held a discussion with Amtrak Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Gery Williams less than 24 hours after sending letters to U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and Amtrak President Roger Harris regarding ongoing service disruptions.
Key Points
• LD13 lawmakers met with Amtrak leadership after raising concerns about rail service reliability.
• Legislators said commuters continue to face delays, cancellations, and infrastructure failures.
• Amtrak pledged enhanced staffing and increased operational attention ahead of World Cup events.
The lawmakers said they expressed frustration that Amtrak infrastructure problems continue to impact NJ TRANSIT riders and argued that commuters should not be forced to endure repeated disruptions.
During the discussion, the delegation emphasized that reliable service is especially critical with millions of visitors expected to travel through the region during upcoming World Cup matches.
Amtrak Promises Additional Resources
According to the legislators, Williams reaffirmed Amtrak’s commitment to NJ TRANSIT riders and outlined steps aimed at improving reliability in the coming weeks.
The lawmakers said Williams pledged “enhanced staffing, increased operational attention along the Northeast Corridor, and dedicated response resources to help minimize disruptions and keep commuters moving reliably as the region prepares to welcome the world for the World Cup.”
Amtrak also stressed the importance of its partnership with NJ TRANSIT and committed to treating New Jersey riders as a priority during the international event.
Lawmakers Demand Accountability
“We appreciate the responsiveness shown by Amtrak leadership and Gery Williams by contacting us today to discuss our concerns,” O’Scanlon, Flynn, and Scharfenberger said in a joint statement.
“New Jersey commuters have experienced significant frustration due to repeated delays and service disruptions, and it was important to have a direct conversation about the steps being taken to improve reliability.”
The legislators said Amtrak detailed investments and infrastructure improvements completed over the past two years, as well as coordination efforts currently underway with NJ TRANSIT.
Focus Turns to World Cup Travel
The lawmakers said they will continue monitoring service reliability as New Jersey prepares to host one of the world’s largest sporting events.
“We raised these concerns because our constituents deserve answers and accountability when service disruptions occur,” the legislators said. “We appreciate Amtrak’s prompt response and willingness to engage directly with us. We look forward to continued communication and will continue advocating for the reliable transportation service New Jersey commuters deserve.”
Copies of the lawmakers’ letter were sent to Gov. Mikie Sherrill, NJ TRANSIT President and CEO Kris Kolluri, Amtrak CEO Stephen Gardner, U.S. Sens. Cory Booker and Andy Kim, and members of New Jersey’s congressional delegation.
- DOJ Sues Virginia Over New Jersey Style Ban on Masks for ICE Agents
The federal government is suing Virginia after the state moved to restrict federal agents from wearing face coverings during enforcement operations, a sharp reversal from the mask mandates many Americans faced just a few years ago.
WASHINGTON — It seems like yesterday when rogue states like New Jersey, California, and Virginia were taking action against people who did not wear face masks. Now, they are taking action against people for actually wearing facemasks. Not all of the people, just some of them.
The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against Virginia over a new state law that restricts federal law enforcement officers from wearing masks and requires them to display identifying information while carrying out official duties.
The legal challenge comes as critics point to what they see as a striking political reversal. During the COVID-19 pandemic, states including New Jersey, California, and Virginia imposed mask requirements on residents, businesses, and public spaces, with some violations resulting in fines, citations, and arrests.
Key Points
• DOJ is suing Virginia over a law restricting masked federal officers.
• Critics say the measure conflicts with past state support for mask mandates.
• The federal government argues states cannot regulate federal law enforcement operations.
The Justice Department argues Virginia’s law unlawfully attempts to regulate federal officers and interferes with federal enforcement activities. Officials also contend the restrictions could expose agents and their families to harassment, doxing, and threats.
“Law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to keep Americans safe, and they do not deserve to be doxed or harassed simply for carrying out their duties,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.
From Mask Mandates to Mask Restrictions
For many Americans, the lawsuit highlights how dramatically the public debate surrounding masks has changed since the pandemic.
Just a few years ago, state governments were enforcing mask mandates and requiring face coverings in schools, businesses, public transportation, and other settings. Individuals who refused to comply in some jurisdictions faced penalties ranging from removal from public facilities to criminal charges tied to violations of emergency orders.
Now, some of those same states and political leaders are backing measures that prohibit certain government officials from covering their faces while performing official duties.
Supporters of the Virginia law argue the issue is not about public health but government transparency. They contend that officers exercising police powers should be identifiable to the public, particularly during controversial enforcement actions.
Federal-State Clash Heads to Court
The Justice Department’s lawsuit focuses on constitutional questions rather than the broader political debate over masks.
Federal officials argue Virginia lacks authority to dictate how federal agents conduct operations and maintain their safety. The complaint also challenges provisions affecting cooperation agreements between federal immigration authorities and local law enforcement agencies.
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said Virginia cannot “tell Federal officers how to do their job” or prevent them from taking steps to protect themselves during federal operations.
The lawsuit marks the latest confrontation between the Trump administration’s Justice Department and states that have adopted policies federal officials view as obstacles to immigration enforcement and other federal law enforcement activities.
Whether the courts ultimately side with Virginia or the federal government, the dispute has revived a debate few expected to return so quickly: who gets to decide when Americans — or government officials — can and cannot wear a mask.
- After Taxing Residents and Businesses To No End, New Jersey Moves to Hit Private Prisons Next
As Residents and Businesses Leave, New Jersey Lawmakers Push New Taxes on Private Prisons
Trenton, NJ – Just when you thought there was nothing left to tax in New Jersey, state Democrats are now looking to use their trademark ‘tax and flee’ policy on an entirely new industry. With their World Cup tax bill failing, the hunt for new targets to force out of the state continues.
New Jersey already carries some of the nation’s highest property taxes, steep income taxes, and a business climate that critics say has helped drive residents and employers out of the state. Yet lawmakers are now advancing legislation that would impose three new taxes and fees on private prison operators, opening a new front in the state’s ongoing search for revenue.
The proposal comes as New Jersey continues to face persistent concerns about affordability and competitiveness. Major companies including Samsung, Exxon, Hess and other employers have shifted operations or reduced their footprint in the state over the years, while New Jersey consistently ranks among the states with the highest levels of outbound migration.
Lawmakers Target Private Prison Operators
The legislation, known as the Knowledge, Accountability, and Rights in Incarceration Markets Act, would apply new financial assessments to privately operated correctional facilities in New Jersey.
Under A4077/S3630, private prison operators would face:
- An 8% fee on the value of correctional service contracts with public entities.
- A $15 per-inmate, per-day fee.
- A 3% non-marginal corporate business tax surcharge on the facility’s net New Jersey income.
Supporters of the legislation argue the fees would help offset costs associated with incarceration and detention while funding legal and community support programs.
Where the Money Would Go
Revenue generated from the per-inmate fee would be directed to the Detention and Deportation Defense Initiative Support Fund, which provides legal services for individuals facing detention and deportation proceedings.
Funds collected through the corporate surtax would be deposited into the Private Prison Societal Rehabilitation Support Fund. According to the legislation, that money would support community-based programs including job training, housing assistance and food security initiatives.
A portion of the surtax revenue would also be distributed to municipalities hosting private correctional facilities to support local police and fire services.
Debate Over New Taxes
The proposal arrives amid broader debates over New Jersey’s tax burden and economic competitiveness.
Critics argue that the state has repeatedly turned to new taxes and fees despite already ranking among the most heavily taxed states in the country. They contend that additional assessments can discourage investment and make it harder for businesses to operate in New Jersey.
Supporters counter that private prison operators should contribute toward programs that address the broader impacts of detention and incarceration, particularly when those facilities generate revenue through government contracts.
Legislative Status
The measure has already cleared Assembly committee review, marking a significant step forward in the legislative process.
However, the bill has not yet become law. It must still pass both the full New Jersey Assembly and Senate before reaching Gov. Phil Murphy for consideration.
For now, the proposal represents the latest chapter in New Jersey’s long-running debate over taxation, economic policy and how far lawmakers should go in seeking new sources of revenue.
Current Status: A4077/S3630 has advanced through Assembly committees but still requires approval from both legislative chambers and the governor’s signature before any new taxes or fees on private prison operators can take effect.
- Jersey City Touted as Safest City, but Report Shows Ex-Mayor Underreported Crime
Mayor James Solomon says an internal audit uncovered thousands of criminal incidents that were never properly entered into state crime databases, raising questions about crime statistics reported during the Fulop administration.
JERSEY CITY, N.J. — Jersey City officials say a review of police records found that more than 3,250 criminal incidents between 2021 and 2024 were not properly reported to state and federal crime databases during former Mayor Steven Fulop’s administration.
The findings, released Tuesday by Democrat Mayor James Solomon and Public Safety Director Anthony Ambrose, stem from an internal audit of the Jersey City Police Department’s reporting practices. According to the review, at least 3,251 criminal cases were omitted from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), the nationwide crime reporting platform used by law enforcement agencies across the country.
It has been claimed that this is happening in cities across America to downplay violence and crime and was even dismmissed by many on the left as a right-wing conspiracy theory.
Now, the claim is coming from within.
Key Points
• Jersey City officials say 3,251 criminal incidents from 2021 through 2024 were not properly reported to NIBRS.
• Mayor James Solomon says pre-2025 crime statistics should no longer be used as a benchmark.
• Former Mayor Steven Fulop has dismissed the findings as politically motivated and says violent crime reporting remained accurate.
“Transparency is only meaningful if the data behind it is trustworthy,” Solomon said while announcing the audit findings.
“And a new era of public safety transparency can only happen if we are honest and accurate about past statistics. Jersey City residents deserve accurate information, and we’re committed to fixing and building systems that deliver it.”
According to city officials, the majority of the unreported incidents involved lower-level offenses and administrative reporting errors rather than violent crimes. The audit found that homicides and other major violent offenses were generally reported accurately throughout the period.
Questions raised about previous crime claims
The findings have reignited debate over public safety claims frequently made during Fulop’s tenure.
For years, Fulop and his administration pointed to declining crime rates as evidence that Jersey City had become one of the safest large cities in America. Officials regularly highlighted reductions in shootings and homicides, at times describing Jersey City as having one of the lowest homicide rates among major cities in the country.
The Solomon administration now says those statistics should be viewed with caution.
“Pre-2025 crime figures should not be used as a benchmark for evaluating future crime trends,” the city said in announcing the audit.
Officials added that 2025 data will serve as the baseline for future crime comparisons because reporting procedures have since been updated.
Audit found reporting breakdowns
According to the review, the missing incidents were linked to several reporting failures, including fragmented workflows, inaccurate initial coding of incidents, failures to update offense classifications and inconsistent tracking of supplemental police reports.
The city said those deficiencies accumulated over several years and resulted in thousands of incidents not being properly entered into NIBRS.
“These findings reflect issues that built up over years,” Ambrose said.
“What matters now is that we’ve identified the problems, we’ve brought in experts to help us fix them, and we’re putting the right systems and staffing in place to get this right going forward.”
He added that residents “deserve transparent, accurate information about the safety of their city and we are going to provide that to them.”
Fulop rejects criticism
Former Mayor Steven Fulop has pushed back against the audit’s implications, arguing the findings are being used for political purposes.
Fulop has maintained that violent crime reporting remained accurate during his administration and that the audit primarily identified paperwork and reporting issues involving lower-level incidents rather than serious violent offenses.
The dispute has quickly become one of the first major political clashes between the new Solomon administration and Fulop, who built much of his public safety messaging around declining crime rates.
State Police review underway
In response to the findings, Ambrose invited the New Jersey State Police to review Jersey City’s crime reporting procedures.
The city said it is adding personnel dedicated to NIBRS reporting, providing additional training for officers responsible for coding and classifying incidents, strengthening supervisory oversight and evaluating upgrades to records management systems.
Officials also announced plans to launch a public crime dashboard in the coming weeks as part of Solomon’s broader “JC IMPACT” initiative aimed at increasing transparency and accountability within city government.
The audit’s findings are expected to fuel continued debate over how crime statistics were reported during one of the most politically significant periods in Jersey City’s recent history.