Government Invents Witness—$3.95M Fallout Erupts

Keyboard keys labeled Fake News and Facts.

Oyster Bay’s use of a fabricated “grandma” to block a mosque exposes how government deception can be weaponized against constitutional rights and local accountability.

Story Snapshot

Oyster Bay officials admitted in federal court that their star witness—a grandmother blocked by mosque traffic—was a hoax.
The town agreed to pay $3.95 million and approve the Bethpage mosque’s expansion after federal intervention.
The Department of Justice forced accountability, highlighting the dangers of unchecked government overreach.
This case sets a national precedent for federal oversight of local zoning and religious freedom disputes.

Government Fabrication in Court: The “Fake Grandma” Scandal

In a federal case that has alarmed constitutionalists and defenders of local accountability, Oyster Bay officials admitted that their primary witness against a mosque expansion—a grandmother supposedly trapped by worshippers’ cars—was entirely invented. This “grandma,” her SUV, and even the grandchildren never existed. Officials confessed under oath in July 2025 that the claim was an amalgam of unrelated resident complaints, none mentioning a grandmother. The fabricated story had been wielded as the town’s central evidence to justify denying religious Americans their right to worship freely.

The revelation came after years of intense opposition to the Muslims of Long Island’s request to expand their Bethpage mosque. The town repeatedly cited traffic and safety concerns, relying on the fictional account to sway both the court and the public. Federal scrutiny intensified when the Department of Justice joined the case, citing violations of the First Amendment and federal religious land use protections. Once exposed, the town’s legal position collapsed, and the officials’ credibility was irreparably damaged.

Oyster Bay caves, agrees to pay $3.95M and approve mosque’s plans after ‘fake grandma’ scandal https://t.co/ftDnttrsNs pic.twitter.com/kaG9sDuse0

— New York Post (@nypost) August 21, 2025

Federal Pressure and the Settlement’s Broader Significance

Following the officials’ admission, Oyster Bay rapidly agreed to a $3.95 million settlement and approval of the mosque’s expansion plans in August 2025. This financial penalty—extracted from local taxpayers—reflects the serious legal and ethical breach involved. Beyond the payout, the case highlights the hazards of government actors abusing their authority to impose personal or political biases, especially when constitutional rights are at stake. The Department of Justice’s intervention demonstrates how federal agencies can override local decisions when they violate religious freedoms or due process, raising concerns about the growing reach of Washington over community affairs.

Attorneys for the mosque condemned the town’s actions as blatant religious discrimination and a pathetic abuse of power, emphasizing that such conduct stands in direct opposition to American principles of liberty and equal treatment under the law. The settlement also signals to municipalities nationwide that fabricating evidence or manipulating zoning processes to target religious or minority groups will not be tolerated and may result in heavy financial and reputational consequences.

Long-Term Implications: Precedent for Federal Oversight

The Oyster Bay scandal sets a powerful precedent for federal intervention in local zoning and religious freedom disputes. In the short term, the mosque’s expansion will proceed, and the local Muslim community receives long-overdue vindication. Residents of Oyster Bay, meanwhile, face a significant financial liability and must reckon with the consequences of their officials’ actions. Looking ahead, this case may deter other municipalities from employing dishonest tactics to block religious or unpopular developments, knowing that federal scrutiny and penalties are now a real risk.

For conservative Americans, this story is a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked government officials who are willing to bend the truth and sidestep the Constitution to serve their own agendas. It also spotlights how federal agencies can assert control over local matters when constitutional rights are threatened—a dynamic that demands constant vigilance from citizens who value limited government, property rights, and transparent governance. Ultimately, the scandal is a stark reminder that defending the Constitution means holding all levels of government accountable for honesty, fairness, and respect for individual liberties.