Hazlet Brothers File $50M Federal Lawsuit Against State in Online Child Porn Case (IANUALE Et Al V STATE OF NEW JERSEY Et Al) (3:18-cv-03069-FLW-LHG)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Hazlet Brothers File Federal Lawsuit against State, Township and Monmouth County Prosecutor’s
Office for $50M in Damages for Online Child Porn Case
HAZLET, NEW JERSEY, March 6, 2018 – New Jersey brothers, Robert “Fist Pump” and Philip Ianuale, who
were arrested nearly two years ago and named in a twelve-count indictment last year, which charged
Robert Ianuale with possession and distribution of child pornography and Philip Ianuale with obstruction
of justice, have filed a fifty million dollar ($50,000,000) federal lawsuit against the State of New Jersey,
Monmouth County, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township Police, Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office,
Prosecutor Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Assistant Prosecutor Margaret Koping and Detective John
Sosdian.
A copy of the federal complaint (3:18-cv-03069-FLW-LHG) can be found here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1T1uH37PLhsxomkySGJo041IuhnDXNvU4
The federal lawsuit asserts that the Hazlet brothers were falsely arrested and subsequently defamed by
the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office's allegations that Robert Ianuale possessed and distributed
child pornography and prostituted underage females on SwerveCast. These charges contrast with
Monmouth County’s official report, detailing a forensic examination involving nearly 100 different forms
of media, which included of all the Ianuales’ phones, hard drives, and devices, including the SwerveCast
servers, which concluded that absolutely no evidence of child pornography was found.
On March 28, 2016, the brothers had been arrested and their property was seized, based on a false
witness report from an individual whom the Ianuales had previously reported for cyber-stalking,
harassment, and threats to their family for over three years. The brothers possess evidence that links
this case’s key witness to at least one of the five “swatting calls” or prank calls to police dispatchers, in
which this cyber-stalker attempted to have Robert Ianuale arrested for fabricated incidents in 2015,
most notably the April 19, 2015 "swatting" incident that was captured on live-video.
The lawsuit against Detective John Sosdian holds him accountable for failure to perform due diligence
and claims that Detective Sosdian knowingly obtained search and arrest warrants with insufficient
evidence based on fabricated information provided by the cyber-stalker. To this date, the Monmouth
County Prosecutor’s Office has yet to arrest the cyber-stalker/swatter who is instead being used as the
key witness in this case.
Full discovery on the case has not been released, even though it has been seven months since the
indictment. Robert Ianuale claims no involvement with the alleged victims in the child pornography case
and has yet to be provided with evidence for those claims.
The Ianuales charge the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office for purposeful and malicious intent,
attempting to prosecute two innocent men of crimes neither committed, as evidenced by an official
report of all of the Ianuales’ devices that stated that “no child pornography images or videos were
found”.
“We stand by our constitutional rights and will not let the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office
continue to violate our rights, defame our name and get away with it,” says Robert Ianuale, and “We will
hold them accountable for their malicious and wrongful acts to the fullest extent of the law.”
The twenty-six count federal lawsuit establishes that the State of New Jersey along with the other
named defendants had violated the civil rights of Robert and Philip Ianuale, including illegally seizing
Robert Ianuale’s only vehicle, restricting First Amendment rights to free speech, using the bail system as
a punishment tool, excessive bail, violating speedy trial rights, defamation, malicious prosecution, abuse
of process, overstepping jurisdictional and territorial boundaries, and bypassing well-established
federal laws designed to protect online service providers and their officers and directors including
violating the Communications Decency Act (U.S.C Section 230).
It has been more than 220 days since the Ianuales were indicted with what they assert is perjured
testimony, and Monmouth County has not yet provided all discovery in the case, including a video of
Philip Ianuale’s false arrest, a clear and unmistakable violation of procedural due process and the
Ianuales’ constitutionally protected rights.
“If the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office Technology Unit cannot copy a simple video file to a USB
drive after two years, then one may question the accuracy and competency of the Monmouth County
Prosecutor’s Office’s entire investigation,” says Philip Ianuale, referring to his repeated requests for the
home video surveillance footage of his arrest that was illegally seized, and that the Assistant Prosecutor,
Margaret Koping, has continually made different excuses for her inability to provide it.
The Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office has failed to adhere to the constitutional standards imposed
by the United States Constitution as well as the New Jersey Constitution, and continues to violate the
civil rights of both Robert and Philip Ianuale.
Who is to say that others have not also been the victims of the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office,
subject to the same blatant and egregious misconduct?
The hope is that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will
investigate this matter further, since the deprivation of civil rights, unchecked in the Monmouth County
Prosecutor’s Office, needs to be stopped.
+++++++++++++++++++++
For more information:
Robert Ianuale – resorb@gmail.com
http://instagram.com/fistpump
Philip Ianuale – vptcorp@gmail.com

Case 3:18-cv-03069-FLW-LHG Document 1 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 58 PageID: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
ROBERT J. IANUALE; PHILIP J. IANUALE; CIVIL ACTION No.:
Plaintiffs, 3:18-cv-03069-FLW-LHG
- against - COMPLAINT
STATE OF NEW JERSEY; COUNTY OF

MONMOUTH; TOWNSHIP OF HAZLET; HAZLET
TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT; MONMOUTH
COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE; DETECTIVE
JOHN SOSDIAN, in his personal, individual and
official capacities, MONMOUTH COUNTY
PROSECUTOR CHRISTOPHER J. GRAMICCIONI, in
his personal, individual and official capacities,
ASSISTANT MONMOUTH COUNTY PROSECUTOR
MARGARET KOPING, in her personal, individual and
official capacities; JOHN DOES 1-15;
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiff Robert J. Ianuale, residing at 2 Ned Drive, Hazlet, New Jersey, and
Plaintiff Philip J. Ianuale, residing at 2 Ned Drive, Hazlet, New Jersey (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), by way of Complaint against Defendants herein state upon information
and belief as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is an action for compensatory and punitive damages for violation of Plaintiffs'
constitutional and civil rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and for unlawful imprisonment,
wrongful arrest, harassment, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
negligence, negligent hiring and/or retention of incompetent, unqualified and unfit
employees, malicious prosecution, excessive bail, defamation, and failure to train and
supervise, constituting a deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and leading
directly to the aforesaid violations.
Page 1 of 58
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 and 143.
3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367 (a).
4. The venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Robert J. lanuale ("Plaintiff Robert lanuale") is a competent adult citizen of the
United States currently residing at 2 Ned Drive, Hazlet, New Jersey.
6. Plaintiff Philip J. lanuale ("Plaintiff Philip lanuale") is a competent adult citizen of the United
States currently residing at 2 Ned Drive, Hazlet, New Jersey.
7. Defendant State of New Jersey is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a),
and an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) at an address of 255 West
State Street, P.O. Box 307, Trenton NJ 08625.
8. Defendant County of Monmouth is a duly designated County of the State of New Jersey,
under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with a governmental address at Hall of Records,
1 East Main Street, 2nd Floor, Borough of Freehold, County of Monmouth and State of New
Jersey.
9. Defendant Township of Hazlet is a duly designated municipality of the State of New Jersey
under the laws of the State of New Jersey with a governmental address of 255 Middle Road,
P.O Box 372, in the Township of Hazlet, County of Monmouth and State of New Jersey.
10. Defendant Hazlet Township Police Department is a duly designated local law enforcement
agency, under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with a governmental address as 255
Middle Road, in the Township of Hazlet, County of Monmouth and State of New Jersey.
11. Defendant Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office is a duly designated County Prosecutor's
Page 2 of 58
Office of the State of New Jersey, under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with a
governmental address as 132 Jerseyville Avenue, in the Borough of Freehold, County of
Monmouth and State of New Jersey.
12. Defendant Christopher J. Gramiccioni is an individual and the Monmouth County
Prosecutor, duly appointed and, at all times herein, was acting in a capacity as an agent,
servant and/or employee working under the authority and direction of Defendants County
of Monmouth and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, and was acting under the color of
law.
13. Defendant Margaret Koping is an individual and an Assistant Prosecutor, duly appointed
and, at all times herein, was acting in a capacity as an agent, servant and/or employee of
Defendants Christopher J. Gramiccioni, County of Monmouth, and Monmouth County
Prosecutor's Office, and was acting under the color of law.
14. Defendant John Sosdian is an individual and a Detective for the Monmouth County
Prosecutor's Office, duly appointed and, at all times herein, was acting in a capacity as an
agent, servant and/or employee working under the authority and direction of the Defendants
County of Monmouth and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, and was acting under the
color of law.
15. Defendants John D~es 1-15 are fictitious name entities who are liable to the same force,
effort and extent as the identified defendants herein, in their personal, individual and official
capacities, their actual identities may not yet be known and as such, they are being used
under fictitious names as provided in the New Jersey Federal Practice Rules.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
PLAINTIFFS' BACKGROUND AND EMPLOYMENT
16. At the time of the incident in issue, Plaintiff Robert lanuale had received a Bachelor's Degree
from the New York Institute of Technology, cum laude, in computer science with a
Page 3 of 58
specialization in Internet engineering. Plaintiff Robert lanuale was self-employed in several
business ventures, including Resorb Networks Inc. ("Resorb"), a New York corporation, at
the time of the incident in issue. Additionally, Plaintiff Robert lanuale had engaged social
media apps as a humorous (albeit abrasive to some) "shock-jock" online personality called
"Fist Pump", in an effort to both network throughout the Internet, using this entertainment
persona for that purpose, as well as build a following of viewers/users in order to help launch
a service provider with a live online broadcasting service called SwerveCast, owned and
operated by Resorb.
17. Prior to the time of the incident in issue, specifically on May 15, 2015, Plaintiff Robert
lanuale and Resorb had filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against
YouNow, the main competitor to SwerveCast, alleging that its competitor, YouNow, was
engaging in the sexual exploitation of minors and provided exhibits and evidence of these
wrongful acts on November 27, 2015. Resorb Networks, Inc. v YouNow.com, 51 Misc 3d
975, 980 [Sup Ct 2016].
18. At the time of the incident in issue, Plaintiff Philip lanuale had received an Associate's
Degree from Brookdale Community College in Criminal Justice. Plaintiff Philip lanuale was
self-employed in several business ventures at the time of the incident in issue.
19. On the date of the incident in issue, Plaintiffs were located at their residence of 2 Ned Drive,
Hazlet, NJ, the home owned by their parents.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS
20. Prior to Plaintiffs' arrests, during 2015, Plaintiff Robert lanuale was the victim of five
separate "swatting" incidents (i.e., Creatirig False Public Alarm), occurring between April
2015 and December 2015, whereby an individual or individuals contacted law enforcement
with false information of criminal activity warranting emergency law enforcement response
Page 4 of 58
to Plaintiff Robert lanuale's then current residence or vehicle.
21. On October 13, 2015, an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request regarding certain of
these incidents produced a document identifying Shane Johnson as at least one individual
involved in making such false report on at least one occasion.
22. Shane Johnson utilizes several different aliases including "YouNowWatcher" and "Watcher''
when he is using the Internet.
23. Plaintiff Robert lanuale was the victim of identity theft in March of 2015, when Softlayer,
the company that hosted the servers of Resorb, provided an intruder with access to all of
Resorb's and Plaintiff Robert lanuale's computers, passwords and devices.
24. In subsequent months, Apple iPhones were ordered under Plaintiff Robert lanuale's name
and applications for credit cards were submitted using his personal information.
25. Plaintiff Robert lanuale was the victim of an aggressive criminal cyber-stalker
("YouNowWatcher'') for more than a year prior to Plaintiff Robert lanuale's arrest, and this
stalker continues to stalk and harass Plaintiff Robert lanuale to this day.
26. The charges currently pending against Plaintiff Robert lanuale were exactly the same
allegations that were fabricated by this cyber-stalker, who claimed that he would get Plaintiff
Robert lanuale arrested.
27. The cyber-stalker was identified by Plaintiff Robert lanuale's broadcast fans as Tim S.
Johnson, who had claimed that his brother was a New Jersey law enforcement officer.
28. This cyber-stalker has several aliases and one of them is Shane Johnson.
29. The Detective who instigated the arrests of Plaintiffs, Defendant John Sosdian, has a
nephew named Shane Johnson.
30. Plaintiff Robert lanuale had communicated with Defendant John Sosdian several months
prior to Plaintiff Robert lanuale's arrest, by providing Defendant John Sosdian with
information relating to Plaintiff Robert lanuale's cyber-stalker/swatter and proof that Plaintiff
Robert lanuale was the target of false, fabricated and misleading information.
31. On numerous occasions, Plaintiff Robert lanuale had contacted Defendant Monmouth
Page 5 of 58
County Prosecutor's Office and had submitted evidence of continued harassment and
various information on the cyber-stalking/swatting suspect in order to help Defendant
Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office's presumed investigation of the cyber-
stalker/swatter. No follow-up by law enforcement was ever communicated to Plaintiff Robert
lanuale.
32. Plaintiff Robert lanuale sent several emails to Defendant John Sosdian and Defendant
Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, including emails that Plaintiffs and their family were
in fear of their lives due to the continued harassment by the cyber-stalker, who had even
posted photographs of Plaintiffs' parents' house on the Internet and threatened to rape
Plaintiffs' mother.
33. Plaintiffs have been fearful of future incidents of this nature. Plaintiffs had even asked the
prosecutor, Defendant Margaret Koping, for some identifying information regarding Shane
Johnson, one of the Witnesses in the present case against Plaintiffs, in order to satisfy the
dual purpose of assuring Plaintiffs' safety, and ensuring that Plaintiff Robert lanuale would
be able to honor the conditions of his bail release not to have contact with this individual
whom he does not know. Defendant State of New Jersey, through prosecutor Defendant
Margaret Koping, vehemently objected and has not provided any information on Shane
Johnson to Plaintiffs.
34. Defendant John Sosdian claimed that he was contacted by Shane Johnson on October 26,
2015 and provided with incriminating information against Plaintiff Robert lanuale.
35. On November 18, 2015, Shane Johnson responded to the Columbus, Georgia, Police
Department and provided an audio and video recorded statement.
36. Notwithstanding the information supplied by Plaintiff Robert lanuale regarding his cyber-
stalker/swatter, Defendant John Sosdian failed to investigate either the cyber-stalking
incidents or the swatting incidents.
37. Based instead on the information provided by the cyber-stalker himself (i.e., Shane
Johnson), Defendant John Sosdian initiated false affidavits to justify the arrest and search
Page 6 of 58
warrants for Plaintiff Robert lanuale and then proceeded to arrest Plaintiff Robert lanuale
on March 28, 2016.
38. On March 23, 2016, based on information supplied by Shane Johnson, Defendant John
Sosdian, without due diligence in verifying or fact checking any of the information supplied
to him, and knowingly providing false and misleading statements in the warrant affidavits,
obtained search and arrest warrants for Plaintiff Robert lanuale and knowingly made false
statements or omissions that created a falsehood, specifically stating that Plaintiff Robert
lanuale was the "owner/operator'' of SwerveCast.
39. Plaintiff Robert lanuale did not own or operate SwerveCast as alleged by Defendant John
Sosdian. In fact, Resorb owned and operated its broadcasting service product known as
SwerveCast outside of the jurisdictional limits of New Jersey, and is federally protected
under the U.S.C. Section 230.
40. On March 23, 2016, Defendant John Sosdian, by way of obtaining a fraudulent search
warrant knowingly bypassed federal laws and regulations that are specifically designed to
protect service providers and their shareholders (via U.S.C. § 230) from all state criminal
proceedings, and initiated the unlawful criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs in violation of
well-established federal laws.
41. On or about March 28, 2016, Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1,. 1O planned a
ruse to enter the home of Plaintiff Robert lanuale and Plaintiff Philip lanuale at 2 Ned Drive
in Hazlet, NJ instead of properly executing a search warrant.
42. On March 28, 2016, upon opening the front door of 2 Ned Drive, Plaintiff Philip lanuale was
therefore not advised that Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 had any search
warrant.
43. Instead, Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 immediately grabbed Plaintiff Philip
lanuale from within the house and arrested him for Obstruction and Resisting Arrest, prior
to ever advising him that they were there to execute a search warrant.
44. The home at 2 Ned Drive had been equipped with a video surveillance system with
Page 7 of 58
camera(s) capturing the arrest of Plaintiff Philip lanuale by Defendants John Sosdian and
John Does 1-10.
45. On March 28, 2016, Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 entered the home of
Plaintiffs' parents at 2 Ned Drive in Hazlet, NJ, for the purpose of searching the home and
arresting Plaintiff Robert lanuale.
46. Upon entering the home, Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 seized the video
surveillance syst,em, although such seizure was not included as part of the search warrant.
47. Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 wrote false reports regarding the arrest of
Plaintiff Philip lanuale.
48. The videos from the seized video surveillance system would provide incriminating evidence
against Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10, invalidating their reports and the
arrest of Plaintiff Philip lanuale.
49. On March 28, 2016, Plaintiff Robert lanuale was handcuffed in his home and when Plaintiff
Robert lanuale asked what was the reason, John Does 1-10 stated that they were "clearing
the house" making sure that there was no "man with a gun".
50. Shortly thereafter, Defendant John Sosdian entered the premises and stated to Plaintiff
Robert lanuale: "Remember me? I'm Detective Sosdian. You e-mailed me a few times about
Watcher.''
51. On March 28, 2016, without any material evidence that a crime had been committed, and
based solely off of the false and misleading affidavits written by Defendant John Sosdian,
Plaintiff Robert lanuale was arrested and charged with First Degree Endangering the
Welfare of a Minor (x2}, First Degree Promoting Prostitution of a Minor, First Degree Use of
a Juvenile to Commit a Crime, Second Degree Distribution of Child Pornography (x2), Third
Degree Endangering Welfare of a Child, Third Degree Luring an Adult and Third Degree
Financial Facilitation of a Crime.
52. Defendant John Sosdian did not advise Plaintiff Robert lanuale the reason for the arrest or
that there had been a search warrant to search the home until after Plaintiff Robert lanuale
Page 8 of 58
was arrested; nor was Plaintiff Robert lanuale provided with any copy of the warrant nor
was he shown any such warrant existed at the time of his arrest.
53. Plaintiff Robert lanuale was immediately placed alongside Defendant John Sosdian in the
back seat of a Jeep and driven to Monmouth County offices in Freehold to be booked.
54. During the 30-minute drive, Defendant John Sosdian made the following statement to
Plaintiff Robert lanuale while being driven to be booked: "We have videos of you from
Watcher" and "We have you oh money laundering and we are going to seize your car." This
statement had occurred even before Defendant John Sosdian conducted an on-site preview
of the vehicle as detailed in the search warrant. This statement also confirms that Defendant
John Sosdian knew that Watcher was Plaintiff Robert lanuale's criminal cyber-stalker and,
since Defendant John Sosdian's grand jury testimony identified his informant as Shane
Johnson, that Shane Johnson was the cyber-stalker known as Watcher.
55. On March 28, 2016, Plaintiff Philip lanuale was arrested by the Hazlet Police Department
and charged with Third Degree Resisting Arrest, Fourth Degree Obstruction, and Disorderly
Persons for Possession of Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.
56. Plaintiff Philip lanuale did not have any marijuana or drug paraphernalia on his person at
the time of arrest.
57. On March 28, 2016, Defendant John Sosdian unlawfully seized the vehicle of Plaintiff
Robert lanuale, even though the vehicle was not used in the commission of any crime.
Furthermore, Defendant John Sosdian failed to provide a receipt for the seized vehicle at 2
Ned Drive on March 28, 2016, nor did Defendants John Does 1-10 or anyone else leave
such a receipt then or at any time subsequent to that date.
58. On March 28, 2016, Plaintiff Philip lanuale was released on his own recognizance.
59. On March 28, 2016, Plaintiff Robert lanuale was taken to the Monmouth County
Correctional Institution (MCCI), whereby he was processed and advised of his charges.
60. On March 28, 2016, while Plaintiff Robert lanuale was being processed, Defendant John
Sosdian made the statement to Defendant John Doe 1-10: "Have you seen the other
Page 9 of 58
complaint papers? This is the beginning of my investigation. We were going to charge him
with just the rape threat and we added the other charges last minute." These words clearly
established that Defendant John Sosdian had made no attempt to investigate the wrongful
charges against Plaintiff Robert lanuale prior to his arrest, and that Defendant John Sosdian
had hoped that he could back it up with evidence obtained from the search warrants to
justify the charges.
61. On March 28, 2016, Defendant John Sosdian, over-stepped his jurisdictional boundaries
and contacted Softlayer to illegally have Resorb's servers deactivated without a federal
warrant, federal court order or a valid warrant of any kind, since the Softlayer servers were
located in another state, and were leased by Resorb Networks, Inc, a New York corporation.
Consequently, service was terminated for all the broadcasters who had been using
SwerveCast as well as Resorb's other clients. This illegal action effectively destroyed a 17-
year-old New York corporation and compromised several other businesses that had relied
on Resorb's servers for their own websites and email communications. A true and correct
copy of this communication is attached as Exhibit A.
62. On March 28, 2016, Defendant John Sosdian, contacted Twitter to have Plaintiff Robert
lanuale's Twitter account, @fistpump, deactivated in an apparent attempt to silence Plaintiff
Robert lanuale from communicating his view-points and content to his followers.
63. On March 28, 2016, Defendants Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office and Christopher J.
Gramiccioni issued an out-of-court press release and statement to the public. A true and
correct copy of this extra-judicial statement has been attached as E:xhibitB:
64. On March 29, 2016, the State conducted a hearing whereby Judge English added certain
bail conditions that were imposed without the presence of Plaintiff Robert lanuale's attorney,
thereby denying Plaintiff Robert lanuale due process and the ability to object to their
inclusion.
65. On March 29, 2016, Plaintiff Robert lanuale was arraigned without his attorney present and
bail was set at $450,000, no ten percent,. cash only, even though New Jersey Statutes
Page 10 of 58
should have allowed his bail to be posted via cash, bond or property.
66. On March 29, 2016, when bail was initially set, Plaintiff Robert lanuale's attorney was not
advised that the Defendant Margaret Koping had changed the location of the hearing so
that Plaintiff Robert lanuale would be deprived of counsel when bail was initially set. This
assured that certain bail restrictions, which were desired by the Defendant Margaret Koping,
would be granted; however, they would not have been allowed if Plaintiff Robert lanuale's
attorney had been present to refute them.
67. On or about April 3, 2016, Plaintiff Philip lanuale's then attorney, Michael R. Rosas,
requested that the assigned prosecutor for the criminal case preserve the video
surveillance, which was in the possession of the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, of
the initial arrest in order to assure the video record would not be erased, corrupted or
misplaced.
68. On May 24, 2016, Defendant John Sosdian contacted Plaintiff Robert lanuale's beneficiary
via telephone in order to dissuade his posting of Plaintiff Robert lanuale's excessive
$450,000 bail and further violate Plaintiff Robert lanuale's right to bail.
69. On May 27, 2016, Plaintiff Robert lanuale's $450,000 bail was posted after a lengthy bail-
source hearing, in which Judge David Bauman ultimately decided that the funds were from
a legitimate source and allowed the bail to proceed, against the vehement objections by the
Defendant State of New Jersey by way of Defendant Margaret Koping.
70. On May 27, 2016, Plaintiff Robert lanuale's bail restrictions included no contact with victims,
no contact wi.th witnesses, no unsupervised contact with anyone under the age of eighteen
and the unconstitutional provision of no Internet use.
71. On May 28, 2016, the day after Plaintiff Robert lanuale was released on bail,
"YouNowWatcher'' (i.e., Shane Johnson) contacted Plaintiff Robert lanuale's ex-girlfriend
and provided her with a link to an audio call he received from the Monmouth County Victim
Notification System, which advised him that Plaintiff Robert lanuale had been released.
·This audio file was posted to YouTube by Shane Johnson.
Page 11of58
72. On or about July 7, 2016, two weeks after Plaintiff Robert lanuale was released on bail,
Defendant Margaret Koping provided a list of alleged witness names, one of which was
Shane Johnson. Since Plaintiff Robert lanuale did not know Shane Johnson, Plaintiff
Robert lanuale, via his attorney, asked Defendant Margaret Koping for some identifying
information (e.g., photo or address) on Shane Johnson in order to satisfy the dual purpose
of assuring Plaintiff Robert lanuale's safety, and ensuring that Plaintiff Robert lanuale would
be able to honor the conditions of his release not to have contact with an individual (i.e.,
Shane Johnson) whom he did not know.
73. Defendant Margaret Koping vehemently objected and would not provide any information
regarding Shane Johnson.
74. In subsequent hearings on the criminal case, Plaintiff Robert lanuale had requested
information regarding Shane Johnson but Defendant Margaret Koping has not complied.
75. As of this date, Defendants have still not yet provided any information on Shane Johnson.
76. On May 31, 2016 through June 9, 2016, Defendant John Sosdian repeatedly called and
harassed Plaintiff Robert lanuale's ex-girlfriend and ex-girlfriend's father in order to try to
obtain statements from her regarding Plaintiff Robert lanuale.
77. On August 29, 2016, John Does 1-10 acting under the Monmouth County Prosecutor's
Office direction, came to Plaintiffs' home and requested that Plaintiff Robert lanuale "be a
man and come outside". As there was no legal justification or warrant to do so, and Plaintiffs
were represented by attorneys, this was an attempt by Defendants to alarm, harass and
cause anxiety to Plaintiffs. True and correct copies of screenshots from the video
surveillance have been attached as Exhibit ·c.
78. On October 6, 2016, Defendant John Sosdian prepared a false affidavit to obtain search
warrants for Plaintiffs' cellphones, and effectuated this warrant at the Monmouth County
Superior Court on said date, alleging "witness tampering". Plaintiffs were never charged
with crimes resulting from this search warrant.
79. On January 17, 2017, Plaintiff Robert lanuale moved to have his bail conditions modified
Page 12 of 58
seeking to use the Internet and to compel the State to provide Shane Johnson's contact
information.
80. On March 2, 2017, Plaintiff Robert lanuale's motion was granted in part, allowing some
Internet access; however, Plaintiff Robert lanuale was still prohibited from using live-
streaming services and other forums where he would be able to express his content and
viewpoints to the public. Since Internet restrictions were still in place, Defendants were still
imposing bail conditions that were unconstitutional and violated Plaintiff Robert lanuale's
First Amendment rights.
81. On that same date, Plaintiff Robert lanuale's motion was denied in part, whereby the
information regarding Shane Johnson's identity was denied.
82. On March 2, 2017, criminal cyber-stalker, Shane Johnson, advised Defendant John
Sosdian that Plaintiff Robert lanuale was using Facebook and lnstagram.
83. On March 6, 2017, Defendant John Sosdian signed an affidavit that he received information
regarding Plaintiff Robert lanuale's Facebook and lnstagram accounts from Shane
Johnson.
84. On March 6, 2017, in retaliation for Plaintiff Robert lanuale's constitutionally protected
speech, Defendant Margaret Koping moved the trial court to revoke Plaintiff Robert
lanuale's $450,000 cash bail and increase the already excessive bail amount to $750,000;
for using the Internet, whereby Plaintiff Robert lanuale was exercising his constitutional right
to free speech by voicing his concerns and opinions about the Defendants and how they
have infringed on his constitutional rights.
85. On March 30, 2017, Detective Joseph Spicuzza Jr, under the direction of Defendant John
Sosdian, conducted a forensic examination of all electronic devices, phones and hard drives
that were seized at Plaintiffs' home, and, after his review of 99 discs, stated that "no
suspected child pornography images or videos were found". An official report was
generated on April 18, 2017 and supplied to Defendant John Sosdian and Margaret Koping.
A true and correct copy of this report has been attached as Exhibit D.
Page 13 of 58
86. On April 3, 2017, Defendant John Sosdian signed a second affidavit regarding a post by
Plaintiff Robert lanuale about his improperly-seized vehicle, and Defendant John Sosdian
blatantly lied on the affidavit by claiming that Detective William Kelliher had left a receipt for
Plaintiff Robert lanuale's vehicle at 2 Ned Drive on March 28, 2016, when no such receipt
had actually been left.
87. On April 6, 2017, the trial court held that Plaintiff Robert lanuale did not violate his bail
conditions, but left unconstitutional content and viewpoint restrictions in place.
88. On April 10, 2017, a news article was posted to Patch.com entitled "Robert lanuale, 'Fist
Pump', Wrongfully Arrested. Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office Continues to Violate
Civil Rights." However, several days later, the article was removed at the request of
Defendants. A true and correct copy of this news article that was posted online and
subsequently removed is attached hereto as ExhibitE.
89. On April 17, 2017, Defendant John Sosdian contacted Facebook and had Plaintiff Robert
lanuale's Facebook account suspended claiming that Plaintiff Robert lanuale was a
convicted sex offender and was in violation of Facebook's Section 4.6. Plaintiff Robert
lanuale is not a convicted sex offender and has not been convicted of any crime.
90. On May 31, 2017, after 429 Days, more than fourteen months after Plaintiffs' arrests and
without an indictment, Plaintiff Robert lanuale filed a Motion to Dismiss for Unreasonable
Delay per N.J Rule 3:25-3, for violating Plaintiff Robert lanuale's speedy trial rights.
91. On July 6, 2017, after 465 Days, rnote than fifteen months after Plaintiffs' arrests and
without an indictment, Plaintiff Philip lanuale filed a Motion to Dismiss for Unreasonable
Delay per N.J Rule 3:25-3, for violating Plaintiff Philip lanuale's speedy trial rights.
92. On July 14, 2017, in an apparent attempt to render Plaintiffs' motions moot, Defendants
convened a grand jury to pursue an indictment of Plaintiffs, using only Defendant John
Sosdian as a witness, which included perjured testimony, and Defendant Margaret Koping
failed to provide exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.
93. On July 28, 2017, Plaintiffs were so indicted, sixteen months after their arrest.
Page 14 of SS
94. On July 28, 2017, only minutes after Plaintiffs received a copy of the indictment,
YouNowWatcher (Shane Johnson) posted a copy of Plaintiffs' indictment on his Twitter
account, @RealYNWatcher. This also suggests that Defendant John Sosdian had been
conspiring with Plaintiff Robert lanuale's cyber-stalker.
95. On July 28, 2017, in criminal court before Judge Justus, Defendant Margaret Koping
promised to provide the exculpatory video surveillance footage and videos to Plaintiff Philip
lanuale.
96. On August 4, 2017, Defendants Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office and Christopher J.
Gramiccioni issued another out-of-court press release and statement to the public. A true
and correct copy of this extra-judicial statement has been attached as BXhibitF.
97. On or about September 20, 2017, Plaintiff Philip lanuale specifically demanded the
surveillance videos from Defendant Margaret Koping as part of discovery in the criminal
case.
98. In a letter dated October 4, 2017, Defendant Margaret Koping advised Plaintiff Philip lanuale
that she was "in the process of preparing the other items [Plaintiff Philip lanuale] requested,
specifically excerpts from the video surveillance system."
99. Between October 10, 2017 and October 30, 2017, in response to Plaintiff Philip lanuale's
repeated requests for the video files, Defendant Margaret Koping advised Plaintiff Philip
lanuale that the video surveillance system had proprietary software which prevented the
·Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office Computer Crimes unit from downloading the
requested video files.
100. On December 7, 2017, while in criminal court before Judge Bauman, Defendant Margaret
Koping said that, contrary to the initial concern regarding proprietary software, the
Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office Computer Crimes unit had come to "the conclusion
that export of the specific video requested on this particular system should not require any
special players" and she would have Defendant John Sosdian, "her detective burn off a file
of the video."
Page 15 of S8
101. Also on December 7, 2017, Defendant Margaret Koping advised Plaintiff Philip lanuale that
she would provide the requested video excerpts right after Plaintiff Philip lanuale provided
her with a 128GB thumb-drive.
102. On or about December 19, 2017, Defendant Margaret Koping received the requested
thumb-drive.
103. On or about December 21, 2017, Defendant Margaret Koping advised Plaintiff Philip
lanuale (via his Standby Counsel) that she hoped to have the information (i.e., the videos)
copied to the thumb-drive and out to Plaintiff Philip lanuale by the end of the week (i.e.,
December 22, 2017).
104. On December 22, 2017, Defendant Margaret Koping advised Plaintiff Philip lanuale (via his
Standby Counsel) that the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office Computer Crimes unit
was encountering difficulties downloading the information to the thumb-drive and Defendant
Margaret Koping did not think that they would be able to send it to Plaintiff Philip lanuale on
that date as she had planned.
105. On January 8, 2018, Defendant Margaret Koping advised Plaintiff Philip lanuale that she
had not yet viewed the referenced videos and that every time the Monmouth County
Prosecutor's Office Computer Crimes unit attempted to download the videos, the
surveillance system turned itself off, impacting their ability to download any video files.
106. On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff Philip lanuale stated on-the-record before Judge Justus that,
if the Monmouth County lechnology Unit cannot copy a simple video file to a USB drive
after two years, one may question the accuracy and competency of the Monmouth County
Prosecutor's Office's entire investigation.
107. Based on discovery in the criminal case, Defendant John Sosdian of the Computer Crimes
unit is the person within the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office who is in possession of
the video surveillance system.
108. As of this date, Defendants have still not yet provided a copy of the videos to Plaintiff Philip
lanuale.
Page 16 of 58
109. As of this date, it has been more than 220 Days since Plaintiffs were indicted, yet
Defendants still have still not yet provided all discovery to Plaintiffs, a clear and
unmistakable violation of procedural due process, in violation of Plaintiffs' constitutionally
protected rights. ·
110. As of this date, it has been more than 700 Days since Plaintiffs were wrongfully arrested,
and the criminal proceedings still have not been scheduled for trial.
111. As of this date, it has been more than 700 Days since Plaintiffs' property and their parents'
property were seized, and nothing has yet been returned to Plaintiffs or to Plaintiffs' parents.
112. As of this date, Defendants have failed to initiate the federal civil forfeiture proceedings with
regards to Plaintiffs property within the time prescribed by law, and failed to return such
property to Plaintiffs.
113. As of this date, Plaintiff Robert lanuale still has content and viewpoint restrictions in place
as it relates to his bail restrictions, depriving him of his constitutional right to free speech, or
risk losing $450,000 and being re-incarcerated.
114. On March 2, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this federal complaint in order to meet the strict time-lines
of the statutes of lirnitation, or risk losing their right for redress against Defendants for their
unconstitutional conduct towards Plaintiffs.
CAUSES OF ACTION
- FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIM FOR WRONGFUL ARREST of
ROBERT IANUALE
115. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs inclusive as if fully set
forth at length herein.
116. On or about March 23, 2016, Defendant John Sosdian obtained a search warrant for the
Page 17 of 58
premises located at 2 Ned Drive, Hazlet NJ, and obtained additional search warrants for
Plaintiff Robert lanuale's person and Plaintiff Robert lanuale's 2008 BMW Z4, VIN
4USDU53558LV34724, License Plate "FISTPMP".
117. On or about March 23, 2016, Defendant John Sosdian obtained an arrest warrant for
Plaintiff Robert lanuale.
118. Defendant John Sosdian, in the warrant affidavits, knowingly made false statements, or
omissions that created a falsehood.
119. Defendant John Sosdian made those false statements or omissions either deliberately, or
with a reckless disregard for the truth.
120. Those false statements or omissions were material, or necessary, to the finding of probable
cause for the arrest and search warrants.
121. On or about March 28, 2016, Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 effectuated
complaints falsely accusing Plaintiff Robert lanuale with committing crimes and conspired
and/or acted in concert to affect Plaintiff Robert lanuale's wrongful arrest.
122. Defendants State of New Jersey, County of Monmouth, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township
Police Department, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office are directly and vicariously
liable for the acts of the police officers while they were perforrning their official duties under
the color of state, county and municipal law.
123. These charges were brought and Plaintiff Robert lanuale's subsequent arrest and
prosecution were commenced and instituted by Defendants maliciously and without basis,
with the deliberate intent to harm Plaintiff Robert lanuale.
124. As a result of Plaintiff Robert lanuale's wrongful arrest by Defendants, Plaintiff Robert
lanuale's was injured in body and mind and has suffered greatly in his character, finances
and reputation.
125. By reason of the above, Plaintiff Robert lanuale was caused to suffer a deprivation of his
constitutional rights as described above, emotional distress, humiliation, legal expenses
associated with defending the false and malicious charges brought against him by
Page 18 of 58
Defendants, and will suffer additional special damages in the future in the amount which
cannot yet be determined.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Robert lanuale demands judgment against Defendants State
of New Jersey, County of Monmouth, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township Police Department,
and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 on this count
together with compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, interest and cost of suits
incurred and for any such further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIM FOR WRONGFUL ARREST of
PHILIP IANUALE
127. On or about March 28, 2016, Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 made
complaints falsely accusing Plaintiff Philip lanuale with committing the crimes of obstruction
of justice, resisting arrest, possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia,
and conspired and/or acted in concert to affect Plaintiff Philip lanuale's wrongful arrest.
128. The aforementioned acts of Defendants in arresting Plaintiff Philip lanuale was undertaken
without legal or factual justification, without probable cause or any other exception to
warrant requirement under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of
the United States.
129. The aforementioned acts amount to a violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to be free
from unreasonable seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
Constitution of the United States made actionable through 42 U.S.C § 1983.
130. These charges were brought and Plaintiff Philip lanuale's subsequent arrest and
Page 19 of 58
prosecution were commenced and instituted by Defendants maliciously and without basis,
with the deliberate intent to harm Plaintiff Philip lanuale.
liable for the acts of the police officers while they were performing their official duties under
132. As a result of Plaintiff Philip lanuale's wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution by
Defendants, Plaintiff Philip lanuale was injured in body and mind and has suffered greatly
in his character, finances and reputation.
133. By reason of the above, Plaintiff Philip lanuale was caused to suffer a deprivation of his
associated with defending the false and malicious charges brought against him by
Defendants, and will suffer additional special damages in the future in the amount which
cannot yet be determined.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Philip lanuale demands judgment against Defendants State of
New Jersey, County of Monmouth, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township Police Department,
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
42U.S.C. §1983 CLAIM FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
135. On or about March 28, 2016, Defendants made complaints falsely accusing Plaintiffs with
Page 20 of 58
committing crimes and conspired and/or acted in concert to affect Plaintiffs' wrongful
arrests.
136. These charges were brought and Plaintiffs' subsequent arrests and prosecution were
commenced and instituted by Defendants maliciously and without basis, with the deliberate
intent to harm Plaintiffs.
137. As a result of Plaintiffs' wrongful arrests and malicious prosecutions by Defendants,
Plaintiffs were injured in body and mind and have suffered greatly in their character and
reputation.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Robert lanuale and Plaintiff Philip lanuale demand judgment
against Defendants on this count together with compensatory and punitive damages,
attorney's fees, interest and cost of suits incurred and for any such further relief as the Court
deems proper and just.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIM FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
139. Defendants unlawfully initiated criminal processes against Plaintiff Philip J. lanuale.
140.. The charges were without legal or factual justifications and were not based upon probable
cause.
141. As a direct and proximate cause of the action initiated by Defendants, Plaintiff Philip lanuale
suffered a deprivation of constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and made actionable through 42
U.S.C § 1983.
142. Plaintiff Philip lanuale suffered emotional distress, loss of income, humiliation and legal
Page 21of58
expenses to defend the criminal charges brought against him in connection with the
deprivation of his constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth
U.S.C § 1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Philip lanuale demands judgment against Defendants on this
count together with compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, interest and cost of
suits incurred and for any such further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIM FOR UNLAWFUL SEIZURE
144. On or about March 23, 2016, Defendant John Sosdian obtained a search warrant for Plaintiff
Robert lanuale's 2008 BMW Z4, VIN 4USDU53558LV34724, License Plate "FISTPMP".
145. Defendant John Sosdian, in the warrant affidavits, knowingly made false statements, or
cause for the search warrant.
148. On or about March 28, 2016, Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 effectuated
this search warrant for Plaintiff Robert lanuale's vehicle.
149. Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 failed to adhere to the search warrant
requirements and failed to properly conduct an "on-site" preview of the vehicle and
immediately seized Plaintiff Robert lanuale's vehicle.
Page 22 of 58
150. Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 failed to issue a receipt for Plaintiff Robert
lanuale's vehicle.
151. Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 failed to initiate the federal civil forfeiture
proceedings with regards to Plaintiff Robert lanuale's property within the time prescribed by
law, and failed to return such property to Plaintiff Robert lanuale.
152. These actions were commenced and instituted by Defendants maliciously and without
basis, with the deliberate intent to harm Plaintiff Robert lanuale.
153. The aforementioned acts amount to a violation of Plaintiff Robert lanuale's constitutional
rights to be free from unreasonable seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
of the Constitution of the United States made actionable through 42 U.S.C § 1983.
155. By reason of the above, Plaintiff Robert lanuale was caused to suffer a deprivation of his
and will suffer additional special damages in the future in the amount which cannot yet be
determined. ·
of New Jersey, County of Monmouth, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township Police Department,
Page 23 of 58
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 u~s.c. §1983 CLAIM FOR UNLAWFUL SEIZURE
157. On or about October 6, 2016, Defendant John Sosdian obtained search warrants for
Plaintiffs.
158. Defendant John Sosdian, in the warrant affidavits, knowingly made false statements or
cause for the search warrant.
161. On or about October 6, 2016 at the New Jersey Superior Courthouse, Defendants John
Sosdian and John Does 1-1 O effectuated the search warrants on Plaintiff Robert lanuale
and Plaintiff Philip lanuale and immediately seized Plaintiffs' cell phones.
162. Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 failed to initiate the federal civil forfeiture .
proceedings with regards to Plaintiffs' property within the time prescribed by law, and failed
to return such property to Plaintiffs.
163. These actions were commenced and instituted by Defendants maliciously and without
basis, with the deliberate intent to harm Plaintiffs.
164. Defendants John Sosdian, Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office and John Does 1-10
failed to charge Plaintiffs with any crime as a result of these search warrants, and as a result
have knowingly and maliciously violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs, in an attempt
to further increase the harassment, legal expenses and anxiety and concern of Plaintiffs.
165. The aforementioned acts amount to a violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights to be free
Page 24 of 58
Constitution of the United States made actionable through 42 U.S.C § 1983.
166. Defendants State of New Jersey, County of Monmouth and Monmouth County Prosecutor's
Office are directly and vicariously liable for the acts of the police officers while they were
performing their official duties under the color of state, county and municipal law.
167. By reason of the above, Plaintiffs were caused to suffer a deprivation of their constitutional
rights as described above, emotional distress, humiliation, legal expenses and will suffer
additional special damages in the future in the amount which cannot yet be determined.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants State of New Jersey,
County of Monmouth and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, John Sosdian and John
Does 1-10, on this count together with compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees,
interest and cost of suits incurred and for any such further relief as the Court deems proper
and just.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIM FOR FALSE ARREST/ IMPRISONMENT
169. The aforementioned acts of Defendants State of New Jersey, County of Monmouth, Hazlet
Township, Hazlet Township Police Department, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office,
John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 in arresting Plaintiffs were undertaken without legal or
factual justification, without valid probable cause or any other exception to warrant
requirement under t_he Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the constitution of the United
States.
170. The aforementioned acts amount to a violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to be free
Page 25 of 58
Constitution of the United States made actionable through 42 U.~.C § 1983.
171. By reason of the above, Plaintiffs were caused to suffer a deprivation of their constitutional
rights as described above, emotional distress, humiliation, legal expenses associated with
defending the false and malicious charges brought against them by Defendants, and will
suffer additional special damages in the future in the amount which cannot yet be
determined.
against Defendants State of New Jersey, County of Monmouth, Hazlet Township, Hazlet
Township Police Department, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, John Sosdian and
John Does 1-10 on this count together with compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's
fees, interest and cost of suits incurred and for any such further relief as the Court deems
proper and just.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIM FOR UNLAWFUL POLICY. CUSTOM. PRACTICE
AND INADEQUATE TRAINING
Police Department, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office and John Does 11-15 are
vested by state law with the authority to make policy on the use of force effectuating arrest,
processing arrestees and police/citizen encounters. Specifically, John Does 11-15 are
responsible for training police officers and/or were officers in charge when Plaintiffs were
falsely arrested.
Page 26 of 58
174. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 were acting
as police officers, agents, servants and/or employees of the State of New Jersey, County
of Monmouth, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township Police Department, and/or Monmouth
County Prosecutor's Office and were acting under the direction and control of Defendants
State of New Jersey, County of Monmouth, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township Police
Department, and/or Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, and were acting pursuant to the
official policy, practice and custom of the said entities.
175. Acting under color of law pursuant to official policy, practice or custom, Defendants State of
New Jersey, County of Monmouth, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township Police Department,
and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office and John Does 11-15, intentionally, knowingly,
recklessly and/or with deliberate indifference failed to train, instruct, supervise, control and
discipline on a continuing basis Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 in their
duties to refrain from (1) unlawfully arresting and harassing citizens; (2) intentionally,
recklessly and/or negligently misrepresenting the facts of arrest and/or police citizen
encounters; (3) falsifying police and/or other official records; (4) withholding and/or
mishandling evidence; and/or (5) making false arrests.
Police Department, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office and John Does 11-15 were
aware of similar police citizen encounters involving John Sosdian and John Does 1-10
whereby they customarily and frequently subjected citizens held in custody to physical and
mental abuse, unlawfully and maliciously arrested, criminally stalked and harassed citizens,
intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently misrepresented the facts of arrest and/or other
police /citizen encounters, falsified police and/or official records, made false arrests,
mishandled and/or withheld evidence and used unreasonable arid excessive force on
citizens/arrestees.
177. Despite their awareness of these facts, Defendants State of New Jersey, County of
Monmouth, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township Police Department, and Monmouth County
Page 27 of 58
Prosecutor's Office and John Does 11-15 failed to employ any type of corrective or
disciplinary measures against Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10.
Police Department, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office and John Does 11-15 had
knowledge of or, had they diligently exercised their duties to instruct, train, supervise,
control and discipline Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 on a continuing basis,
should have had the knowledge that the wrongs which were done as hereto alleged were
about to be committed.
Police Department, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office and John Does 11-15 had
power to prevent or aide in preventing the commission of said wrongs and could have done
so by reasonable diligence and intentionally, knowingly, recklessly and/or with deliberate
indifference failed to do so.
Police Department, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office and John Does 11-15
directly or indirectly under color of state law proved or ratified the unlawful, deliberate,
malicious, reckless and unwanted conduct of Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-
10 as here before described.
Police Department, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office acting under the color of
law, have enforced, promoted, encouraged, and sanctioned a policy, practice, and/or
custom of excessive and unreasonable systemic court delay in New Jersey's criminal court.
By permitting, tolerating, sanctioning, and causing such widespread systemic court delay,
Defendants have constructively deprived Plaintiffs of their right to a speedy trial under the
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
182. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendants State of New Jersey, County
of Monmouth, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township Police Department, and Monmouth
Page 28 of 58
County Prosecutor's Office and John Does 11-15 as set forth herein, Plaintiffs have suffered
mental anguish and humiliation in connection with the deprivation of their constitutional
rights guaranteed by the Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of
the United States and made actionable through 42 U.S.C § 1983.
Township Police Department, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, and John Does
11-15 on this count together with compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees,
and just.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIM FOR SUPERVISORY LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO TRAIN
184. The Defendants John Does 11-15 by and through its policy makers failed to ensure through
custom, policy and/or practice that its officers were trained in fundamental law enforcement
procedures and protocol relative to arrest, search and seizure and principles of liability
justification consent as set forth in the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice.
185. Defendants John Does 11-15 were officials and/or officers in charge at the time Plaintiffs
were arrested.
186. Defendants John Does 11-15 as policy makers failed to ensure through custom, policy
and/or practice that its officers were trained in fundamental law enforcement procedures
and protocol relative to arrest, search and seizure and principles of liability justification
consent as set forth in the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice.

Page 29 of 58
187. Defendants John Does 11-15 had a duty to prevent subordinate officers, including but not
limited to Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10, from violating the constitutional
rights of citizens and/or detainees.
188. Defendants John Does 11-15 directed Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 to
violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights or had knowledge of and acquiesced in his/their
subordinate's violations, and this is evidenced by the fact that the individual officers failed
to obtain the necessary evidence claimed to be in existence as their basis for the arrest of
Plaintiffs.
189. Defendants John Does 11-15, as the supervisory officers at the time of the incident, had
supervisory responsibility over Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 and, as such,
had a duty to prevent subordinate officers from violating the constitutional rights of citizens
and/or detainees.
190. As a direct and proximate result of the incident caused by the named Defendants and John
Does 11-15 as set forth herein, Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress, humiliation and legal
expenses to defend the criminal charges brought against them in connection with the
deprivation of their constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth
U.S.C § 1983.
Page 30 of 58
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
192. The malicious prosecution and false arresUimprisonment set forth at length above deprived
Plaintiffs of their substantive due process right to be free from unlawful seizure of their
person and their fundamental right to liberty secured by the Constitution of New Jersey in
violation of N.J.S.A 10:6-1 et. seq. ("the New Jersey Civil Rights Act").
193. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of the Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered
mental anguish, humiliation, and loss of wages and/or income.
194. Plaintiffs invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine this claim.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
196. Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10, under color of state statute, ordinance,
custom and uses have subjected and caused Plaintiffs to be subjected to the deprivation of
rights, privileges and immunities secured by the New Jersey Constitution and the laws of
the State of New Jersey in the following particulars: (a) The right to liberty protected by the
Page 31of58
New Jersey Constitution, Art. I, P. 1; (b) The right to be secure as persons against
unreasonable searches and seizures secured to them by the New Jersey Constitution, Art.
I, P. 7; (c) The right to be secure and their property secure against unreasonable searches
and seizures secured to them by the New Jersey Constitution, Art. I. P. 7; (d) The right to
be free from unlawful detention and imprisonment as secured by this New Jersey
Constitution; and (e) The right to protection and due process.
197. Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10, acting under color of law intentionally
deprived Plaintiffs of their civil rights.
Police Department, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office are liable for the actions of
its employees who were acting in their official capacities.
199. Defendants' acts were done in knowing violation of Plaintiffs' legal and constitutional rights
and have directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs' injury including humiliation, mental pain
and suffering and emotional distress.
200. Defendants' deprivation of Plaintiffs' civil rights in violation of the New Jersey Constitution
give rise to Plaintiffs' claim for redress under N.J.S.A 10:6-1 et. seq.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court award Plaintiffs compensatory and
consequential damages in the amount to be determined at trial against all Defendants jointly
and severally, including attorney's fees and costs incurred in bringing this action against all
Defendants jointly and severally as set forth in N.J.S.A 10:6-1 et. seq.
Page 32 of 58
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
204. The actions of Defendants were intentional, extreme and outrageous.
205. As a result of said conduct, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional distress that no person
would be expected to endure.
206. The acts of Defendants were in violation of the common law of the State of New Jersey.
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIM FOR DEFAMATION
209. On or about March 28, 2016, Defendants Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, Margaret
Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni issued out-of-court, extra-judicial statements in the
form of a press release stating that Plaintiff Robert lanuale "was engaged in the prostitution
of juvenile females"; that he '-'as the owner/operator of SwerveCast, would allow juvenile
females to engage in sexual acts during broadcasts available only to users who paid to view
online broadcasts"; and that his "[p]rofiting off the sexual abuse of juveniles is intolerable".
Page 33 of 58
210. Furthermore, Defendant Christopher J. Gramiccioni stated Plaintiff Robert lanuale was an
"online abuser and predator[s]" which "seek[ing] to line their pockets through the sexual
exploitation of their victims"; insinuating that Plaintiff Robert lanuale was a predator to the
public even prior to an indictment being handed down.
211. As a direct and proximate consequence of said Defendants Monmouth County Prosecutor's
Office, Margaret Koping's and Christopher J. Gramiccioni's actions, Plaintiffs suffered loss
of liberty, humiliation, mental anguish, depression and Plaintiffs' constitutional rights were
violated.
212. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office,
Margaret Koping's and Christopher J. Gramiccioni's actions, Plaintiffs suffered injury to their
reputation from an official's false statement.
Margaret Koping's and Christopher J. Gramiccioni's actions, Plaintiffs suffered a stigma that
was sufficiently derogatory to injure Plaintiffs' reputation and is capable of being proved
false, and Plaintiffs in fact claim that Defendants Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office;
Margaret Koping's and Christopher J. Gramiccioni's statements are indeed false.
214. Furthermore, Plaintiffs also suffered a burden or alteration of status or rights due to the
defamatory statements by Defendants Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, Margaret
Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni issued to the public. As such, the state-imposed
burden deprived Plaintiffs of property, employment, and right to a fair trial with an impartial
jury of their peers which are protected liberties under due process.
215. Defendants Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni were at all material times
acting within the scope of their employment, and as such, Defendants State of New Jersey,
County of Monmouth, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office are vicariously liable for
Defendants Margaret Koping's and Christopher J. Gramiccioni's acts as described above.
216. Defendants Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni statements were extra-judicial
statements made in an out-of-court press release and thereby Defendants Margaret Koping
Page 34 of 58
and Christopher J. Gramiccioni are not immune and are personally liable for the acts as
described above.
217. The aforementioned acts amount to a violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and are
made actionable through 42 U.S.C § 1983.
against Defendants Margaret Koping, Christopher J. Gramiccioni, State of New Jersey,
County of Monmouth, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office on this count together with
compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, interest and cost of suits incurred and
for any such further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIM FOR DEFAMATION
219. Oil or about August 4, 2017, Defendants Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, Margaret
Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni again issued out-of-court, extra-judicial statements
in the form of another press release stating that Plaintiff Robert lanuale was indicted for
"engaging in the prostitution of juvenile females"; that he ''as owner/operator of SwerveCast,
would allow juvenile females to engage in sexual acts during broadcasts available only to
users who paid to view online broadcasts"; and that "Robert lanuale, 33, and his brother
Philip lanuale, 32, both of Ned Drive in Hazlet, are named in the 12-count indictment".
220. Furthermore, Defendant Christopher J. Gramiccioni stated in his extra-judicial statement
that Plaintiff Robert lanuale was a "predator ... lurking in the cyber-shadows hoping to line
[his] pockets through exploitation, or worse, feed off the vulnerabilities of our unsuspecting
children. We will prosecute [Plaintiff Robert lanuale] to the fullest extent of the law''.
Page 35 of 58
221. As a direct and proximate consequence of said Defendants Monmouth County Prosecutor's
Office, Margaret Koping's and Christopher J. Gramiccioni's actions, Plaintiffs suffered loss
of liberty, humiliation, mental anguish, depression and Plaintiffs' constitutional rights were
violated.
Margaret Koping's and Christopher J. Gramiccioni's actions, Plaintiffs suffered injury to their
reputation from an official's false statement.
Margaret Koping's and Christopher J. Gramiccioni's actions, Plaintiffs suffered a stigma that
was sufficiently derogatory to injure Plaintiffs' reputation and is capable of being proved
false, and Plaintiffs in fact claim that Defendants Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office,
Margaret Koping's and Christopher J. Gramiccioni's statements are indeed false.
224. Furthermore, Plaintiffs also suffered a burden or alteration of status or rights due to the
defamatory statements by Defendants Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, Margaret
Koping's and Christopher J. Gramiccioni's issued to the public. As such, the state-imposed
burden deprived Plaintiffs of property, employment, and right to a fair trial with an impartial
jury of their peers which are protected liberties under due process.
225. Defendants Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni were at· all material times
Defendants Margaret Koping's and Christopher J. Gramiccioni's acts as described above.
226. Defendants Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni statements were extra-judicial
statements made in an out-of-court press release and thereby Defendants Margaret Koping
and Christopher J. Gramiccioni are not immune and are personally liable for the acts as
described above.
227. The aforementioned acts amount to a violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and are.
made actionable through 42 U.S.C § 1983.
Page 36 of 58
against Defendants Margaret Koping, Christopher J. Gramiccioni, State of New Jersey,
County of Monmouth, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office on this count together with
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. §1983 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
(AGAINST JOHN SOSDIAN. MARGARET KOPING. CHRISTOPHER J. GRAMICCIONI.
AND MONMOUTH COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE)
229. On July 14, 2017, Defendant John Sosdian appeared before a grand jury and committed
perjury by claiming that Plaintiff Philip lanuale had been advised that Defendant John
Sosdian was executing a search warrant, prior to Plaintiff Philip lanuale's arrest
230. Defendant John Sosdian further committed perjury before the grand jury by claiming that
Plaintiff Philip lanuale had resisted arrest and obstructed justice, instead of truthfully stating
that Plaintiff Philip lariuale was never advised that he would be placed under arrest nor that
there had been a warrant to search the premises, prior to arresting Plaintiff Philip lanuale.
231. Defendant Margaret Koping knowingly and purposely withheld exculpatory evidence and
strategically failed to present this exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, in order to obtain
an indictment against Plaintiffs, specifically, Defendant Margaret Koping failed to present
material facts and exculpatory video surveillance footage of Plaintiffs' home, that would
exonerate Plaintiff Philip lanuale as well as the official Monmouth County Prosecutor's
Office reports detailing that Plaintiff Robert lanuale did not possess any child pornography
Page 37 of 58
to the grand jury, in order to obtain an indictment against Plaintiffs.
232. Defendants John Sosdian and Margaret Koping were at all material times acting within the
scope of their employment, and as such, Defendants State of New Jersey, County of
Monmouth, Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office and Christopher J. Gramiccioni are
vicariously liable for Defendants acts as described above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment against Defendants John Sosdian,
Margaret Koping, Christopher J. Gramiccioni, State of New Jersey, County of Monmouth and
Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office on this count together with compensatory and punitive
damages, attorney's fees, interest and cost of suits incurred and for any such further relief as
the Court deems proper and just.
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OFACTION
42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIM FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY
234. Defendants conspired against Plaintiffs to deprive them of the equal protection of the laws
by collaborating to create false police reports in an attempt to cover up their deprivation of
their civil rights. These actions violated both common law and 42 U.S.C 1985 (c).
235. Defendant John Sosdian and John Does 1-10, made false statements in their reports, which
were approved by supervisors, including but not limited to Defendants John Does 11-15,
Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office and Hazlet Police Department.
236. The false statements made in these reports were intended to cover up the Defendants'
wrongful acts.
237. Defendants further violated Plaintiffs' rights by detaining Plaintiffs and further charging
Plaintiffs with crimes that Plaintiffs did not commit.
Page 38 of 58
238. In addition, Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 participated in and advanced
the conspiracy against Plaintiffs by their actions.
239. The decision was made by Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 to continue to
detain and charge Plaintiffs with crimes, knowing full well that Plaintiffs had done nothing
wrong in order to covet up and/or justify Defendants John Sosdian's and John Does 1-1 O's
already illegal and unconstitutional acts.
240. These actions by Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 were taken under color of
state law and embodied a policy, practice, custom or procedure of Defendants State of New
Jersey, County of Monmouth, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township Police Department, and
Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office.
241. The actions of the individual Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 were taken in
their capacities as officials or employees of Defendants State of New Jersey, County of
Monmouth, Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, Hazlet Township and Hazlet Township
Police Department and are therefore attributable to Defendants State of New Jersey,
County of Monmouth, Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, Hazlet Township and Hazlet
Township Police Department.
242. In addition, Defendants John Sosdian, Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni
participated in and advanced the conspiracy against Plaintiffs by purposefully withholding
material and exculpatory evidence to the grand jury in order to obtain an indictment against
Plaintiffs after Plaintiffs formally asserted their constitutional right to a speedy trial and
Plaintiffs each filed a formal motion to dismiss the pending criminal charges for
unreasonable delay and violation of those protected constitutional rights.
243. Furthermore, Defendants conspired against Plaintiffs to deprive them of the equal
protection of the laws by collaborating to commit perjury and failing to present exculpatory
evidence to the grand jury, in order to quickly obtain an indictment against Plaintiffs only
after Plaintiff Robert lanuale and Plaintiff Philip lanuale each legally asserted his right to a
Speedy Trial and each filed a moti.on to dismiss the pending criminal charges against them.
Page 39 of 58
244. Some of the exculpatory evidence withheld from the grand jury includes the videos of
Plaintiff Philip lanuale's arrest obtained from the video surveillance system operating at 2
Ned Drive on March 28, 2016.
245. In addition to providing such exculpatory evidence, these videos would also provide
incriminating evidence against Defendant John Sosdian.
246. As of this date, Defendant Margaret Koping has not yet provided copies of these videos to
Plaintiff Philip lanuale as part of the discovery, although requested numerous times
including via a motion to compel discovery.
247. These videos, as well as the video surveillance system currently remain in the possession
of Defendant John Sosdian of the Computer Crimes unit of the Monmouth County
Prosecutor's Office.
248. It is presumed that the failure to turn over the videos is due to Defendant John Sosdian's
reluctance to provide evidence that would incriminate him for perjury both in his reports and
before the grand jury.
249. Since such evidence would be detrimental to the criminal case against Plaintiff Philip
lanuale as well as Plaintiff Robert lanuale, Defendant Margaret Koping is presumed to have
conspired with Defendant John Sosdian to prevent Plaintiff Philip lanuale from obtaining a
copy of the videos.
250. Considering that the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office has been in possession of the
videos for almost two years, it is very doubtful that Defendant Margaret Koping has not yet
viewed the videos, but she could not say so without being required to drop all charges
against Plaintiff Philip lanuale, based on the video itself, and Plaintiff Robert lanuale, based
on the perjured testimony of Defendant John Sosdian.
251. Any attempt by Defendants to cause such videos to be erased or corrupted would provide
clear evidence of the conspiracy between Defendants Margaret Koping and John Sosdian.
252. Other exculpatory evidence withheld from the grand jury includes the true identity of Shane
Johnson, identifying him as a cyber-stalker and a swatter.
Page 40 of 58
253. The failure of Defendant Margaret Koping to provide information on Shane Johnson to the
grand jury and to Plaintiff Robert lanuale is a means to protect Shane Johnson from
prosecution for those crimes.
254. Since such result would be detrimental to the criminal case against Plaintiff Robert lanuale,
Defendant Margaret Koping is presumed to have conspired with Defendant John Sosdian
to prevent Plaintiff Robert lanuale from knowing the true identity of Shane Johnson.
255. Since Defendant John Sosdian has a nephew named Shane Johnson, and the cyber-stalker
(e.g., Tim Shane Johnson) had claimed to have a relative in a New Jersey law enforcement
position, there is an apparent relationship between Shane Johnson and Defendant John
Sosdian, which if true, would undermine the entire criminal case.
256. Defendant Margaret Koping failed to provide any discovery related to Shane Johnson, her
primary witness in the criminal case against Plaintiffs, including his audio and video
recorded statement made to the Columbus, Georgia Police Department.
257. As a direct and proximate result of said conduct, Plaintiffs sustained severe mental and
emotional injuries and distress that no person would ~e expected to endure.
258. Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 agreed and conspired to give a false
account of the facts in the arrest of Plaintiffs.
259. Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 maliciously and intentionally made false
statements regarding the arrest of Plaintiffs in police reports, statements to the prosecutor,
and in court documents, including grand jury testimony.
260. Defendant Margaret Koping, in her misguided attempt to convict Plaintiffs, both innocent
men, conspired with Defendants John Sosdian, Christopher J. Gramiccioni and John Does
1-10 by knowingly accepting the false police reports with the perjured grand jury testimony
and maliciously and intentionally have withheld exculpatory evidence in order to further their
unlawful agenda in an attempt to justify the botched investigation and subsequent arrests
of Plaintiffs.
261. Defendants John Sosdian, Margaret Koping, Christopher J. Gramiccioni and John Does 1-
Page 41of58
10 were at all material times acting within the scope of their employment, and as such,
Defendants State of New Jersey, County of Monmouth, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township
Police Department and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office are vicariously liable for
Defendants John Sosdian, Margaret Koping, Christopher J. Gramiccioni and John Does 1-
1O's acts as described above.
262. The aforementioned Defendants are liable for said damage and injuries pursuant to the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. §
1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Robert lanuale and Plaintiff Philip lanuale, demand judgment
against Defendants State of New Jersey, County of Monmouth, Monmouth County
Prosecutor's Office, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township Police Department, John Sosdian,
John Does 1-10, Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni on this count together with
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENCE
Police Department, Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, and Christopher J. Gramiccioni
negligently hired Defendants John Sosdian, Margaret Koping, and John Does 1-10.
negligently trained, retained or hired Defendants John Sosdian, Margaret Koping, and John
Page 42 of 58
Does 1-10.
negligently retrained Defendants John Sosdian, Margaret Koping, and John Does 1-10.
267. The aforesaid acts of Defendants State of New Jersey, County of Monmouth, Hazlet
Township, Hazlet Township Police Department, Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, and
Christopher J. Gramiccioni constitute negligence.
268. The aforesaid acts of negligence proximately caused Plaintiffs' sustained severe mental
and emotional injuries and distress that no person would be expected to endure.
Township Police Department, Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, and Ch,ristopher J.
Gramiccioni on this count together with compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees,
and just.
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIM FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS
10 have made an improper, illegal and perverted use of the legal procedure and their resort
to the legal process was neither warranted nor authorized by law.
271. D,efendants John Sosdian, Margaret Koping, Christopher J. Gramiccioni and John Does 1-
10 had ulterior motives in initiating the legal process. Specifically, aforementioned
Page 43 of 58
Defendants utilized the legal process to intimidate and harass Plaintiffs.
10 were at all material times acting within the scope of their employment, and as such,
Defendants State of New Jersey, County of Monmouth, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township
Police Department and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office are vicariously liable for
Defendants John Sosdian, Margaret Koping, Christopher J. Gramiccioni and John Does 1-
1O's acts as described above.
273. As a direct and proximate result of said conduct, Plaintiffs sustained and suffered loss of
liberty, financial injury, mental injury, humiliation, mental anguish and emotional distress
that no person would be expected to endure.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants on this count together
with compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, interest and cost of suits incurred
and for any such further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIM FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS
(AGAINST MARGARET KOPING AND CHRISTOPHER J. GRAMICCIQNI)
275. Plaintiff Robert lanuale's bail had been set at $450,000 cash-only, even though the New
Jersey Statutes would allow Plaintiff Robert lanuale to post his bail via cash, property or
bond.
276. Defendants Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni made an improper, illegal and
perverted use of the legal procedure by failing to adhere to the well-established statute
regarding bail. Specifically, 'Defendants Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni
Page 44 of 58
did not adhere to N.J. Statute 2A162-12. Per that statute, section (b) applied, which would
have allowed Plaintiff Robert lanuale to choose to pay his bail via cash, bond or property.
277. When Plaintiff Robert lanuale brought this before the trial court in a motion, even though
subsection (c) did not apply to Plaintiff Robert lanuale, Defendants Margaret Koping and
Christopher J. Gramiccioni claimed that the trial court had discretion within subsection (b)
to designate the bail as cash-only, whereby Plaintiff Robert lanuale's motion was thence
denied.
278. Defendants Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni used the legal system in order
to purposely incarcerate and restrict Plaintiff Robert lanuale's freedom and constitutionally
protected liberties by knowingly pursuing excessive bail and making it cash only, in the
amount of $450,000, which was the functional equivalent of no bail, even though New
Jersey Statutes have stated that Plaintiff Robert lanuale's bail should have been secured
by cash, bond or property.
279. Defendants Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni used the legal system in a
way it was not designed to be used, in order to restrict Pl,aintiff Robert lanuale's
constitutionally protected right to be free from excessive bail, being able to make bail and
forcing him to remain incarcerated for two months.
280. Defendant Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni maliciously tried to revoke
Plaintiff Robert lanuale's bail without any legal or factual justification, in an attempt to re-
incarcerate Plaintiff Robert lanuale in an apparent retaliation for Plaintiff Robert lanuale
exercising his constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.
281. Defendants Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni also made an improper, illegal
and perverted use of the legal procedure by failing to adhere to the well-established court
rule regarding conditions of bail release. Specifically, Defendants Margaret Koping and
Christopher J. Gramiccioni did not adhere to N.J. Court Rule 3:26-2(b)(2)(D), whereby
Plaintiff Robert lanuale would only be required to have no contact with witnesses "that are
named in the document authorizing [Plaintiff Robert lanuale's] release or in a subsequent
Page 45 of 58
court order". Although Plaintiff Robert lanuale's ex-girlfriend met neither of these criteria,
she was included as a no-contact witness, with Defendant's hope that Plaintiff Robert
lanuale would contact his ex,..girlfriend, thereby violating his bail conditions and subjecting
him to re-incarceration.
282. Defendants Margaret Koping, Christopher J. Gramiccioni and John Sosdian made further
improper, illegal and perverted use of the legal procedure by the issue of search warrants
on October 6, 2016, written by Defendant John Sosdian that included falsehoods in order
to establish probable cause, against Plaintiffs for charges of contempt, witness tampering,
and conspiracy to commit those offenses related to Plaintiff Robert lanuale's ex-girlfriend,
since they were predicated on the ex-girlfriend being a no-contact witness.
283. After the seizure of Plaintiffs' cell phones, up to and including to this day, Plaintiffs were
never charged with charges of contempt, witness tampering, and conspiracy to commit
those offenses.
Defendants Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni acts as described above.
285. As a direct and proximate result of said conduct, Plaintiff Robert lanuale sustained and
suffered loss of liberty, financial injury, mental injury, humiliation, mental anguish and
emotional distress that no person would be expected to endure.
of New Jersey, County of Monmouth, Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, Margaret
Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni on this count together with compensatory and punitive
damages, attorney's fees, interest and cost of suits incurred and for any such further relief as
the Court deems proper and just.
Page 46 of 58
TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983- DUE PROCESS
287. The actions of Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10, which include the unlawful
seizure of Plaintiffs' person and property, perjury, fabrication of facts and omissions of facts
in order to obtain probable cause was intentional, extreme and outrageous.
288. Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-10 were at all material times acting within the
scope of their employment, and as such, Defendants State of New Jersey, County of
Monmouth, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township Police Department and Monmouth County
Prosecutor's Office are vicariously liable for Defendants John Sosdian and John Does 1-
10's acts as described above.
290. Defendants' actions, as described above, violated the rights, privileges, and immunities
guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New
Jersey, including without limitation the right to due process of law, and thereby constitute a
cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Robert lanuale and Plaintiff Philip lanuale demand
judgment against Defendants on this count together with compensatory and punitive
damages, attorney's fees, interest and cost of suits incurred and for any such further relief
as the Court deems proper and just.
Page 47 of 58
TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983- DUE PROCESS
292. The actions of Defendants Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni, which include
failing to provide exculpatory evidence, failing to provide discovery, purposefully delaying
the criminal proceedings in order to gain a strategic advantage, and using the bail system
as a punishment tool was intentional, extreme and outrageous.
County of Monmouth and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office are vicariously liable for
Defendants Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni's acts as described above.
295. Defendants Margaret Koping's and Christopher J. Gramiccioni's actions, as described
above, violated the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the
Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New Jersey, including without
limitation the right to due process of law, and thereby constitute a cause of action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
against Defendants Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni, State of New Jersey,
County of Monmouth and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office on this count together with
Page 48 of 58
TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF 42U.S.C.§1983- EXCESSIVE BAIL
297. Defendants John Sosdian, Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni, have made an
improper, illegal and perverted use of the legal procedure by failing to adhere to the well-
established court rules and statutes regarding bail.
298. Defendant John Sosdian, by way of knowingly making false statements or omissions that
created a falsehood in the warrant affidavit, deliberately and recklessly misled the judge in
obtaining arrest warrants for Plaintiff Robert lanuale, and if not for such misrepresentations
bail would not have been unconstitutionally excessive.
299. Defendants John Sosdian, Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni used the legal
system in order to purposely incarcerate and restrict Plaintiff Robert lanuale's freedom and
constitutionally protected liberties by knowingly pursuing excessive bail and making it cash
only even though New Jersey Statutes, per N.J.S.A Statute 2A:162-12, stated that Plaintiff
Robert lanuale's bail should have been allowed to be secured by cash, bond or property.
300. Plaintiff Robert lanuale's bail was excessive in light of the valid state interests sought to be
protected and Defendants actually and proximately caused bail to be excessive.
301. Defendants John Sosdian, Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni knowingly had
bail set at an excessive level in a sum that is the functional equivalent of no bail; knowing
that Plaintiff Robert lanuale did not have access to $450,000 in cash, and knowingly and
purposefully made bail cash-only, even though the New Jersey Statutes for bail would have
allowed per N.J.S.A Statute 2A:162-12, that Plaintiff Robert lanuale's bail should have been
allowed to be secured by cash, bond or property.
302. Defendants John Sosdian, Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni were at all
material times acting within the scope of their employment, and as such, Defendants State
Page 49 of 58
of New Jersey, County of Monmouth, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office are
vicariously liable for Defendants John Sosdian, Margaret Koping and Christopher J,
Gramiccioni acts as described above.
303. As a direct and proximate result of said conduct, Plaintiff Robert lanuale sustained and
suffered loss of liberty, financial injury, mental injury, humiliation, mental anguish and
emotional distress that no person would be expected to endure.
304. As a direct and proximate cause of the action initiated by Defendants, Plaintiff Robert
lanuale suffered a deprivation of constitutional rights guaranteed by the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and made actionable
through 42 U.S.C § 1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Robert lanuale demands judgment against Defendants John
Sosdian, Margaret Koping, Christopher J. Gramiccioni, State of New Jersey, County of
Monmouth, and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office on this count together with
iWENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. ~-1983- SPEEDY TRIAL
306. Defendants Margaret Koping, Christopher J. Gramiccioni and John Does 1-10 have
purposefully delayed criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs in order to obtain a strategic
advantage against Plaintiffs by depleting their financial resources, ·increasing public
obloquy, ridicule and hatred toward Plaintiffs, as well as fostering the anxiety and concern
of Plaintiffs.
Page SO of 58
307. Defendants Sate of New Jersey, Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, Christopher J.
Gramiccioni and Margaret Koping did not move for an indictment against Plaintiffs until 487
Days after Plaintiffs' wrongful arrests, and as of the filing of this Complaint, it has now been
over 220 Days and Defendants still have not provided full and complete discovery in the
criminal proceedings, it has now been over 700+ Days since Plaintiffs were wrongfully
arrested, and the criminal proceedings still have not been scheduled for trial, a clear
violation of The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 and the right to a Speedy Trial as guaranteed by
the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 18 U.S.C § 3173; and thereby
constitute a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
308. Plaintiffs have asserted their speedy trial rights on numerous occasions and have each filed
speedy trial motions in state court in order to dismiss the pending charges in criminal court
with no success.
309. Plaintiffs· have exhausted all state level remedies regarding having the pending criminal
charges dismissed for violation of their constitutionally protected rights.
310. Defendants, acting under the color of law, have enforced, promoted, encouraged, and
sanctioned a policy, practice, and/or custom of excessive and unreasonable systemic court
delay in New Jersey's criminal court. By permitting, tolerating, sanctioning, and causing
such widespread systernic court delay, Defendants have constructively deprived Plaintiffs
of their right to a speedy trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
311. The actions of Defendants Margaret Koping, Christopher J. Gramiccioni and John Does 1-
10, which include the intentional, drawn-out and unlawful delay of the criminal proceedings
against Plaintiffs in order to gain a tactical advantage against Plaintiffs, are intentional,
extreme and outrageous.
312. Defendants Margaret Koping, Christopher J. Gramiccioni and John Does 1-10 were at all
material tirnes acting within the scope of their employment, and as such, Defendants State
of New Jersey, County of Monmouth and Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office are
Page 51of58
vicariously liable for Defendants Margaret Koping, Christopher J. Gramiccioni and John
Does 1-1 O's acts as described above.
314. Defendants' actions, as described above, violated the rights, privileges, and immunities
guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New
Jersey, including without limitation Plaintiffs' rights under The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 and
the right to a Speedy Trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, 18 U.S.C § 3173, and thereby constitute a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.
TWENTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. § 1983-VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
316. Plaintiff Robert lanuale's bail conditions which included no use of the Internet, and
subsequently, limited use of the Internet, with the threat of losing $450,000 and having
Plaintiff Robert lanuale's bail revoked and re-incarcerated is an unconstitutional abridgment
on its face, and as applied or threatened to be applied, of Plaintiff Robert lanuale's
Page 52 of 58
affirmative rights to freedom of speech under the United States Constitution, First and
Fourteenth Amendments.
317. Defendants' use of bail restrictions in limiting Plaintiff Robert lanuale's free speech is
irrational and unreasonable, imposing unjustifiable restrictions on the exercise of protected
constitutional rights.
318. As these restrictions imposed on Plaintiff Robert lanuale by Defendants are irrational and
unreasonable, its application violates the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
319. Furthermore, Plaintiff Robert lanuale subsequently engaged in this constitutionally
protected activity, and the government responded with retaliation, when Defendants' State
of New Jersey, County of Monmouth, Monmouth County Prosecutor's' Office, Margaret
Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni tried having Plaintiff Robert lanuale's bail revoked.
320. As a direct and proximate cause of the action of Plaintiff Robert lanuale exercising his
constitutional right to free speech, Defendants State of New Jersey, County of Monmouth,
Monmouth County Prosecutor's' Office, Margaret Koping and Christopher J. Gramiccioni
retaliated by having Plaintiff Robert lanuale's already excessive bail revoked and increased
to $750,000.
321. By reason of the aforementioned speech restriction, including the bail restrictions, created,
adopted, and enforced under color of state law, Defendants have deprived Plaintiff Robert
lanuale of his right to engage in protected speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause of
the First Amendment as applied to the states and their political subdivisions under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
322. Defendants' restriction on Plaintiff Robert lanuale's speech is content and viewpoint based
in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
323. Defendants' true purpose for adopting the bail restrictions at issue here was to silence the
viewpoint expressed by Plaintiff Robert lanuale's speech. Consequently, the true purpose
for adopting the bail restriction was to silence disfavored viewpoints in violation of the Free
Page 53 of 58
Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
324. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violation of the Free Speech Clause of the
First Amendment, Plaintiff Robert lanuale has suffered irreparable harm, including the loss
of his constitutional rights, entitling him to declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal
damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Robert lanuale demands judgment against Defendants on
this count together with compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, interest and
cost of suits incurred and for any such further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
TW"ENTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. § 1983 - VIOLATION OF_FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
EQUAL PROTECTION
326. By reason of the aforementioned speech restriction, including the bail restrictions, created,
adopted, and enforced under color of state law, Defendants have unconstitutionally
deprived Plaintiff Robert lanuale of the equal protection of the law guaranteed under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that Defendants
are preventing Plaintiff Robert lanuale from expressing a message based on its content and
viewpoint and forum, thereby denying the use of a forum to those whose views Defendants
find unacceptable.
327. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violation of the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff Robert lanuale has suffered irreparable harm,
including the loss of his constitutional rights, entitling Plaintiff Robert lanuale to declaratory
and injunctive relief and nominal damages.
Page 54 of 58
TWENTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF AND PREEMPTION UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT,
47 U.S.C. § 230, PURSUANT TO 42U.S.C.§1983
329. Plaintiff Robert lanuale was not the owner or operator of SwerveCast.
330. SwerveCast is owned and operated by Resorb Networks Inc., a New York corporation.
331. SwerveCast is an "interactive computer service" within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. § 230,
because it operated the interactive online live-video broadcasting platform
SwerveCast.corn.
332. Section 230 states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information
content provider".
333. Defendants have violated Plaintiff Robert lanuale's rights under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1),
because Defendants are trying to treat Plaintiff Robert lanuale as the publisher or speaker
of information provided by another information content provider.
334. The criminal proceedings against Plaintiff Robert lanuale is a "State . . . law that is
inconsistent with" Section 230, in direct violation of 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(3).
335. Defendants are attempting to back-end a statute (N.J.S.A. § 2C: 13-1 O(b)(1 )), that was
declared unconstitutional and invalid by this District Court (2: 13-cv-03952-ccc-jbc), through
their charging Plaintiff Robert lanuale with similar crimes, that the now unconstitutional and
Page 55 of 58
invalid statute was attempting to encompass, as a result of Plaintiff Robert lanuale being a
shareholder and/or officer of Resorb, which provided an interactive computer service that
was called SwerveCast.
336. The charges against Plaintiff Robert lanuale appears to be Defendant Monmouth County's
way of bypassing the May 14, 2014 final judgement of the District Court of New Jersey,
which enjoined the enforcement of N.J.S.A. § 2C:13-10(b)(1). However, instead of targeting
Facebook Live, YouNow or any other large service providers that would have significant
resources to defend themselves, Defendants have solely targeted SwerveCast, since ·
Plaintiff Robert lanuale does not have the resources to mount a suitable defense.
337. According to well-established federal case law regarding Section 230 of the CDA, Plaintiff
Robert lanuale, who was not the speaker or publisher of the alleged content, is entitled to
immunity from all state criminal proceedings.
338. The criminal proceedings initiated by the State against Plaintiff Robert lanuale violates and
is preempted by Section 230 of the CDA, and therefore such proceedings should be
enjoined, dismissed with prejudice and declared invalid.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
1. Enter a judgment that Defendants, by their actions, violated Plaintiffs' rights under
state law, and violated Plaintiff's rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. §
1983; and,
Page 56 of 58
2. Enter a judgment that Defendants, by their actions, extreme prejudice and
unreasonable delay, violated Plaintiffs' rights under The Speedy Trial Act of 1974
and the right to a Speedy Trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, 18 U.S.C § 3173; and,
3. Enter a judgment that Defendants, by their actions, violated Plaintiffs' rights
under Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C § 230; and,
4. Enter a judgment, jointly and severally, against Defendants State of New Jersey,
County of Monmouth, Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township Police Department, and
Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office and the individual Defendants Christopher
J. Gramiccioni, Margaret Koping, John Sosdian and John Does 1-15 for
compensatory damages in the amount of Twenty.. Five Million Dollars
($25,000,000.00); and,
5. Enter a judgment, jointly and· severally against the individual Defendants for
punitive damages in the amount of Twenty-Five Million Dollars ($25,000,000.00);
and,
6. Enter an Order:
a. Awarding Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
b. Dismissing all criminal charges against Plaintiffs, with prejudice;
c. Granting such other and further relief which to the Court seems just and
proper.
Page 57 of 58
Plaintiffs declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: March 2 2018

1
Robert J. lanuale
Philip J. lanuale
Page 58 of 58
Case 3:18-cv-03069-FLW-LHG Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 59
EXHIBIT A--~ -
..... ---· - .
Ticket 11269569.07
Reg;uO~
Jctt'U'J r.
Anumi ~11r!maht
Sci11~i,'f, an li;SM-C1:.1nprm~·
Ur;<lme'il
R!:i;ii!rt.ls.
A:"Tlht•NK.
1\huse [1epnr'1N!r:t
Sia!tlNfOI'., iID ltiM Coo;li'lnv
Up:trti:H~
Ri;.!J!!f<li'l,
.J£i!!ie.y T.
,..,,tus~ Oepil.rtiuei1t
Scrftttr,-er. an IBM C~any
Llpd::11e7
Rqgi)rd~
lltlf"lf'"'1t!,
Ait!i.i::#) ~i.ifififl11'.ffll'
t"1fil.3jier,.un ~~• Cnn;s:t:my
Upcld.ile£
Ahu!;in ™r..nr:m~nt
5011!.;!'p't;i. ilJl ISM C01Vq;iru1;•
Ur;c:t:t!>J5
AwwarclJJ,
Je:tl:rey T.
s\!::u!r.!t'la?:l.:It':mr.mt
.Siafttl'ft-"1'~ nn ISM ~ny
Up::t.l1n-4
Fl~[JiJJ{I&,
H~ot€0
,A1.bu:ro ~J:;!ri!nwtt
So:lltlzi~·cr, :ul lBM Ccrripfulti
U~n3
Ti:;.;lay, ~ f/i¥·::i'l ~. ~P'I~ ihtlirwm;,r !ill¢ >,fL:>:z:r:r cc s.-.-;r-..<w.'~, fl.::t,.-.11, l;mm1lo~ 11t~ .fl.~¢.nn niwlip.'p ~imf",;ns ot ~f'.kl ~'T'f:t.lng;';imnnt, illl?Y ~ ~ fi;.t!Q·;;,~: ~ng ;i Aitn
Pnqli\4ngtf 111$!!00t111 r.tlfd JXllYlt:g!lptq, t.!l!'filn~r,g.&,,; \li!Jr'~ nf ii m~ !!)~• pn~>iitiS'ir,;g Of l.l'•,')';>14.J~''ililN.<fi!J, !!hi(! pt,-;tnOC..;t:;ipll~•., [,1;4'>1'.'1) 1'.li) 1;<11!~ 11111 A!Mt to C01lll1'ili SI Slit»;;.;<!
tindan!)?fil'J9 th!! '•"li~stQ iof .& <~i\:J u~· t.pzysit(Cy O}{•*~ ff') ii\W'• ~l::il~~fJ iJ)fj •>€1ii1if1J 11~:.pk.'t~·!liii:ri t:.t· at:JJe{i <•la i:t,tl, t1fl(.fS;t'9'#il'li;i ~l!tl 'l"'lltt:m\t f,.f a c:ttin, tiy i'.>Et-lTil!Jrtga ~'tikl 1
~Mlec1o'laitN'diJl~lltl'!<uy\t cf 111..
i i:!l71 re~ifeQ~ the s...~.~ wets:t~ be '!UWet-.:V..N:fonil' PR!l'.~, as p!!r trn, pre!l"'.J\titlklf1 re~ ab:m.tf ~•l.
Ttunq•au,
Of3t~•.·11~~iln
PL tA.'SE 1...~1E YOUR CONTACT INFQRMAT!ON A.5 MY c-P,,WI.. li.~$5 H.iw CHAN!.i.fD,
NOTIC€ Cf'. rof-51'1:tENTIALITY This rnessa~. rdatliil;J l!nf tior mesS::t~ amil att.a..""lmeilts. l"l't.Yf ccr~r1 :ad~•«snf"f. r.:.f..\n!!:Ut:!ti.\>e <!j"'Kl/er :o'etberam~ rrat~, ~d!!ntal il'li
~nr and ttr.dnhmcb:i cec:ip'~t:!~ is. ur1au!hnmi H.,r.:.u are rr.:I! 1hc j,;tr.:n:ieri! reo::;i:Wm d trJ:. mnsa;;J:<. irf( cm:ii;,sure, •::;::1µy;h;i. alwmutt:m •:ir m:ticr;. til.lmncr rnm iaM!n In n
mrn;~o in C!l'Clf, )'00 !ihCclO nnt !:ril•"!;. ~ lrN'IW~ prm!; ll~• Cf ctizlr.iimF'iti:n ml;:; lni'l!l~!! or :my infCrm:ilkm .::zm1t;ilood fr, tN~m:is!::aiie f'1 ilrlj' W<l.'f .a'ld you strulll Ff'.zl!Tlpl~
LJpd..lin i.1 0 tAU·1'1 :;;\'L 2C•!f, 4:21 r.rn
Rngnrd~
~ii't'tWtilB
.A'.)}ul.le li:ffl.~<lJ~meftl: l'<'l.'¥'\:l!<;)'iM
&:tl!lft.fr~~ w> IBMC0t:t~irn~·
Updatei
EXHIBIT B
---~
-- - -
-
EXHIBIT C . - , - -- - -- - - -- - ~ . . . .. . .
- -------
"'!· ~- .

EXHIBIT D ---~
- - - - -
"' - - -·----·-
L Unit
l":YBl?.R ~JNIT!'COM'P'lJiER
CRL~ES
:r,;rr"'!;! ii i\'..rS
DANG!EJJUNG THE WELF,t~:~J:;.
Of A Cff!LD
9, l,o~tltJqi ·rvi'!f)ri:rru.;!
52: BROAID S.'FLU;ET KEYPORT, N.li !Ji'nJS.;
1•. Su~J~~iC:;:~
IL [ANUAL!K ~ ). SSN: .:DOB: ilBi~}2d9S4:SBI; 531J!JS3C: !t '2 NED DR. H:>'~d~t. NJ. ()?730
F~<m~.l'J 8£X: MALE: JJtACE.·: G\lf('A&JAN~
liS.
I1 NAJ::tJ~1\TL'\:~
~
. ,,,, · , \ '. · ~~c'.,+;;~·
. t: v,,
·": : · .. ~r.~ ~
7
'd&'."" .
Pn _.,
"'»"' ,,,,;, , • , ,
- -- - -- -- --- - -- ----- - ~ - --- -~~ - - - - - - - ---- - - ~-- - - - ----- - - ~ - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -
Ori ~fartlt 30, 2017~ Unth~r t~te s.upetVi;SaOltl of u~11r.:.et~Vtl; J uht1. Str&dfoul'l I CQL1dU<..~ted ·ill pr~vit:il,\' exatllttliiitlt!lj of ii:
1
combinatiu.n (1f CDs 3l1!d D'Vl1K l8bclcd "' t 5,,, r· through ·" l 5""•Hi~' .ttnd ··16,, r·· tbrougll ~-I 6,,,j:.f' for a total. of 99·
dli~cs.. A •·t~revie'i.•t~ ts a lhnited seareh o:f ·electL'omic ·1:nedia fbr specJfied infot'UHH:im~, '11.rhich i.n thi,s. cru:e is fi1'r
c\lid~nc~ Jtssoci:ded \Vid1 child pomo.g1-;;4,pby, lJpcm rny r~;vtJC1\r uf rnc RR1f:cmc.m1iom~d CDs arid DVD:5:t no
suspecned cihHdl JKt:mogeaphy i:nutg\es it1if' videos v1ctte fiJnhd. t!he 99 Clls and b VIJs htbzi:ted "1 5,_ 1~' tlht·ou~h
""t:S-4;6' and~--(,., t "''through ·~1f'.t;:5:i"hSJV1G been rct:umc:d'to Detective J~-,l!n1 s~;.sdian.
1
~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: SliiJJ MODl1LES '

EXHIBIT E --
~--- ----
. - - - ~ - - - -.
•••oo Verizon tTE . ·. 10:44 PM ~ 100%

Q patch.com
ti
•
R b r I nu I I
II
I t
II
I r ull
rr • m uh
r r'
• •
I e, I u to
• •
Vi I I iI I s.
On March 28, 2016, Robert lanuale,
Hazlet NJ as the victim of a cyber
stalker falsely arrested by the
Monmouth County Prosecutor's
Office
By ight Or ( tch
April 7, 2017 9:46 pm ET
Patch.com
April 7 1 2016
Robert lanuale, "Fist Pump", Wrongfully Arrested. Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office,
Continues to Violate Civil Rights.
On March 28, 2016, Robert lanuale of Hazlet, NJ was again the victim of a criminal cyber stalker
and falsely arrested by the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office. The same cyber-stalker who
previously "Swatted" lanuale over S different times throughout 2015, most notably the April 19,
2015 "Swatting 11 Incident captured on live~video;
Since then, Robert lanuale has continued to be the victim of that same cyber-stalker. To' date,
The Monmouth County Prosecutors Office who was handling the original swatting incident,
along with the FBI and Keyport Police Department, have still failed to apprehend the individual.
On May 12, 2015,. lanuale was invited to testify in front of the Assembly Homeland Security and
State Preparedness Committee in Trenton; to help pass Moriarty's 'swatting' bill
However, the March 28, 2016 false arrest of Robert lanuale was undoubtedly orchestrated by
that same exact criminal cyber-stalker with fabricated information by submitting it to a
Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office Detective who failed to perform due diligence and fact
check any of the information submitted; obtaining arrest warrants, not on evidence, but based
solely on the false information supplied to the Detective and his accompanying deficient
affidavit.
In fact, that same criminal cyber stalker; who has plagued lanuale for nearly two years, is now
listed as the key witness in lanuale's pending criminal charges, and the Monmouth County
Prosecutor's Office still to this day has failed to apprehend the criminal cybeMtalker, who is still
wanted for the previous "swatting" incidents to which lanuale was the victim of.
It has now been over an entire year, over 375 days since lanuale's false arrest and incarceration
and the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office has still failed to indict lanuale by a Grand Jury
on the first and second degree charges; t.hat he t1ad been falsely accused and arrested of.
This raises the q\Jestions of lanuale's right to Due Process and Speedy Trial and.the continued
violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional Rights. In 1967; the United
States Supreme Court held that the right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the United States
Constitution and was a fundamental right applied to the states by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
As a direct and approximate result of the gross negligence and malicious conduct of the
Monmouth County Prosecutors Office in both lanuale's arrest and failure to apprehend the
criminal cyber-stalker; lanuale can't find a job.
lanuale is actively looking for a job. He is a Chief Software Architect; located in New Jersey,
however - is only available for remote opportunities, due to the fact the Monmouth County
Prosecutors Office also unlawfully seized his vehicle 375 days ago, and has 'no way of
commuting to work.
The Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office also failed to file for forfeiture of his 2008 BMW Z4
Coupe within 90 days; failed to list it as evidence; and failed to notify the Department of Motor
Vehicles that they indeed seized his vehicle, per the law. This once again, is in violation of
lanuale's Fourth Amendment Rights of Due Process and Illegal Search and Seizure
11
We have noted that the obligation to conduct forfeiture proceedings ''in conformity with time
requirements is of constitutional dimension." State v. Cavassa, 228 N.J. Super. 204, 210 (App.
Div. 1988). We have also recognized that an unjustified delay in bringing forfeiture proceedings
results in "the deprivation of property during the intervening period [which] constitutes a denial
of due process." State v. One FordVan Econoline, 154 N.J. Super. 326, 336 (App. Div. 1985};
citing State v. John Brek (App Div. 2012).
However, it has been over a year and still to this day, counting over 375+ days since Robert
lanuale's wrongful arrest; lanuale still has not seen his car, and the Monmouth County
Prosecutor's Office has provided no reason forthe illegal seizure, where the car is located or
explained the misconduct of their office.
1
The Monmouth County Prosecutor s Office has failed to adhere to the constitutional standards
imposed by the United States Constitution as well as the New Jersey Constitution, and is
continuing to violate the civil rights of Robert lahuate.
Who is to say that others have not also been the victim of the Monmouth County Prosecutor's
Office with the same blatant and egregious misconduct?
With the hopes that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Department of Justice
(DOJ) will investigate this further; as the depriva.tion of civil rights that are seemingly unchecked
by the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, needs to be stopped.
For more information, or to contact Robert fanuale regarding job opportunities; please reach
out via his facebook, https://www.facebook.com/rober. .. or message him on lnstagram,
http://instagram.com/fistpump
EXHIBIT F
---
~-
-- -
- -
OFFICE OF THE MONMOUTH COUNTY PROSECUTOR

CHRISTOPHER .J. GRAMlCCIONI
MONMOUTH COUNTY PROSECUTOR
"FISTPUMP" INDICTED FOR PROSTITUTION OF UNDERAGE GIRLS
BROTHER ALSO INDICTED FOR RESISTING ARREST 1 OBSTRUCTION DURING INVESTIGATION


Hazlet Brothers File $50M Federal Lawsuit Against State in Online Child Porn Case (IANUALE Et Al V STATE OF NEW JERSEY Et Al) (3:18-cv-03069-FLW-LHG)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hazlet Brothers File $50M Federal Lawsuit Against State in Online Child Porn Case (IANUALE Et Al V STATE OF NEW JERSEY Et Al) (3:18-cv-03069-FLW-LHG)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A copy of the federal complaint (3:18-cv-03069-FLW-LHG) can be found here:

For more information:

Robert Ianuale – resorb@gmail.com

Philip Ianuale – vptcorp@gmail.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF NEW JERSEY; COUNTY OF

"Plaintiffs"), by way of Complaint against Defendants herein state upon information

and belief as follows:

wrongful arrest, harassment, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress,

negligence, negligent hiring and/or retention of incompetent, unqualified and unfit

supervise, constituting a deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and leading

directly to the aforesaid violations.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

§ 1331 and 143.

U.S.C. § 1367 (a).

4. The venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

United States currently residing at 2 Ned Drive, Hazlet, New Jersey.

States currently residing at 2 Ned Drive, Hazlet, New Jersey.

State Street, P.O. Box 307, Trenton NJ 08625.

governmental address as 132 Jerseyville Avenue, in the Borough of Freehold, County of

Monmouth and State of New Jersey.

12. Defendant Christopher J. Gramiccioni is an individual and the Monmouth County

Defendants Christopher J. Gramiccioni, County of Monmouth, and Monmouth County

Prosecutor's Office, and was acting under the color of law.

PLAINTIFFS' BACKGROUND AND EMPLOYMENT

specialization in Internet engineering. Plaintiff Robert lanuale was self-employed in several

975, 980 [Sup Ct 2016].

self-employed in several business ventures at the time of the incident in issue.

Hazlet, NJ, the home owned by their parents.

APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS

to Plaintiff Robert lanuale's then current residence or vehicle.

involved in making such false report on at least one occasion.

when he is using the Internet.

Resorb's and Plaintiff Robert lanuale's computers, passwords and devices.

Robert lanuale arrested.

nephew named Shane Johnson.

various information on the cyber-stalking/swatting suspect in order to help Defendant

Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office's presumed investigation of the cyber-

stalker/swatter. No follow-up by law enforcement was ever communicated to Plaintiff Robert

Department and provided an audio and video recorded statement.

stalker/swatter, Defendant John Sosdian failed to investigate either the cyber-stalking

incidents or the swatting incidents.

on March 28, 2016.

lanuale was the "owner/operator'' of SwerveCast.

under the U.S.C. Section 230.

well-established federal laws.

in Hazlet, NJ instead of properly executing a search warrant.

John Does 1-10.

arresting Plaintiff Robert lanuale.

Plaintiff Philip lanuale.

arrest of Plaintiff Philip lanuale.

Financial Facilitation of a Crime.

Johnson, that Shane Johnson was the cyber-stalker known as Watcher.

Persons for Possession of Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.

the time of arrest.

such a receipt then or at any time subsequent to that date.

justify the charges.

copy of this communication is attached as Exhibit A.

lanuale's Twitter account, @fistpump, deactivated in an apparent attempt to silence Plaintiff

correct copy of this extra-judicial statement has been attached as E:xhibitB:

attorney had been present to refute them.

Defendant State of New Jersey by way of Defendant Margaret Koping.