Lol source? Could easily be faked

Literally anyone could have created this. There are a lot of people in JC who have too much time on their hands and should be out looking for a job.

Given the date on the text message, this looks like it's a week before the city council passed their local ordinance on the matter. And the deadline state-wide for those ordinances was August 21. Which is the sort of government work I could easily see one official asking another:

>"Do you have a map for where marijuana is going to be allowed in Hoboken?"

Where's the part about the dispensary?

Nobody is denying that his wife is one of the members in the LLC that bought the commercial space and is the landlord for the dispensary.

Assuming this screenshot is even real, there are a hundred reasons he could have asked those questions, all of which having to do with getting a quick answer for his wife, as a landlord who likely has a lease contingent upon, or a MOU to enter a lease contingent upon, approval of the dispensary.

Feel free to look at the dispensary's license application, which is available on-line, and search for an ownership interest Fulop or his wife have in the dispensary. Spoiler alert - there isn't one.

Ok?

Hadaway and shite, man!

Everyone should read the application, that's where I began.

Source is the new lawsuit filed by the Condo Assoc. Also included are details that the Dispensary has an option to buy the property after 1 year at a $1m profit for Fulop and Drew Nussbaum.

"Immediately after its formation, and before BCB approved the subject loan, on August 13,
2021, Mayor Steven M. Fulop, defendant Jaclyn Fulop’s husband, had the following exchange
with council member Tiffanie Fisher concerning the proximity of cannabis dispensaries in
Hoboken, which revealed the Retail Defendants’ true intentions for the unit: "

This was a week after Fulop himself viewed the property and asked the owner to take it off market. The property is in Tiffanie Fisher's ward.

Hard to find a more objective source than allegations in a plaintiff's complaint, especially those particular allegations that make conclusory characterizations about an e-mail that does not, on its face, prove what the plaintiff is claiming.

Where is it? I’ll gladly read it!

I believe plaintiff is claiming that the owners misrepresented their intentions with the space to both the seller and the mortgage company. I don't believe they are solely relying on Fulop's text to prove this.
I'm not too concerned about that aspect so I'm not going to argue it's merit except to point out that you're wrong. It just seems a little reachy after calling it fake.

I think this whole business stinks and they were foolish to push ahead with it.

Never called it fake, but you seem to interpret everything in a way that serves your evident bias.

Sorry I assumed "assuming this is real" as implying the text might be fake, you were clearly acting within your rights as a sentient being to assert the Cartesian reality of the situation.