Team Kuhn and Burnstein are shamelessly at it once again!
This time, Jackson Township Mayor Jennifer Kuhn and Council President Mordechai Burnstein are using friendly local paid media to sell the public a fictional court victory — one that never actually happened — in yet another attempt to rewrite history and distance themselves from their own controversial actions.
On cue, The Lakewood Scoop dutifully published the administration’s “approved” press release under the triumphant headline:
“Superior Court upholds Jackson Township zoning ordinance, affirms municipal authority.”
That headline is demonstrably false.
It bears little resemblance to what the judge actually ruled — and even less resemblance to what is happening right now in court.
What the Scoop Headline SHOULD Have Said
“Court Dismisses First Lawsuit as Moot After Township Repeals Ordinance; New Lawsuit Challenging Replacement Ordinance Actively Pending.”
That’s not spin. That’s the record.
The Ordinance at Issue: Jackson Crossings and 1,200 Homes
The Scoop article concerns the very same zoning ordinance touted as stopping 1,200 homes at Jackson Crossings — a politically charged measure Kuhn and Burnstein have repeatedly tried to rebrand as a clean, decisive win.
It wasn’t.
And it still isn’t.
What Actually Happened (The Part Left Out of the Press Release)
Here is the real timeline — stripped of spin and grounded in procedural fact:
• Jackson Township Council adopted a zoning ordinance
• The developer sued, challenging the ordinance on both procedural and substantive grounds
• Rather than defend the ordinance in court, the Council repealed it and adopted a new ordinance
• The repeal cured certain procedural defects — but did not address the substantive challenges
• The Township then moved to dismiss the original lawsuit, arguing the repealed ordinance made the case moot
• The developer immediately filed a new lawsuit, nearly identical to the first, challenging the replacement ordinance
• The judge agreed the first lawsuit was moot — solely because the ordinance no longer existed
That’s it.
That’s the ruling.
What the Judge Did NOT Do
Contrary to the Scoop’s headline and Kuhn and Burnstein’s press narrative, the court:
❌ Did not uphold the ordinance on the merits
❌ Did not find the developer’s claims lacked merit
❌ Did not affirm the Township’s substantive authority
❌ Did not validate the ordinance as lawful or reasonable
The judge made zero findings about whether the ordinance itself is valid.
None. Zero. Zilch.
And the Case Isn’t Over — It’s Ongoing
The administration’s press release conveniently omits a critical fact:
👉 The developer’s new lawsuit challenging the replacement ordinance is actively pending right now.
The screenshots below show the litigation is very much alive — despite claims that the matter has been conclusively resolved.
If the ordinance had truly been “upheld,” there would be no second lawsuit.
There is one.
Procedural Cleanup Sold as Judicial Vindication
What Kuhn and Burnstein are attempting here is not subtle.
They repealed a challenged ordinance.
They avoided defending it.
They obtained a procedural dismissal.
And now they are selling that procedural housekeeping as a sweeping legal victory.
That is not governance.
That is narrative laundering.
This isn’t the first time FAA News has exposed Kuhn and Burnstein’s shameless revision of recent history.
FAA News previously reported on how the same officials attempted to distance themselves from actions they personally voted for — only to be contradicted by public records, court filings, and their own prior statements.
Once again, when the facts are inconvenient, the solution appears to be the same: rewrite the story, push it through compliant outlets, and hope no one checks the docket.
This isn’t about zoning minutiae or legal technicalities.
It’s about elected officials:
claiming credit for rulings that never occurred
misleading the public about ongoing litigation
and using local media as a megaphone for revisionist history
Calling a mootness dismissal a merits victory isn’t a difference of opinion — it’s a material distortion of the court record.
Kuhn and Burnstein did not win in court.
They dodged a ruling, repealed an ordinance, and obtained a procedural dismissal — while the real legal fight continues.
No amount of press releases, friendly headlines, or rewritten history can change that.
And once again, FAA News is here to prove it.
To join the FAA News community click here. It's a private group. No one will see your number.
No comments:
Post a Comment