helmetta complaint

8/19/2019 Helmetta Complaint

1/29

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(1)

The Law Offices ofEDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

Attorney ID No. 024161997Edward Harrington Heyburn, Esq.7 Poplar RunEast Windsor, New Jersey 08520Tel. (609) 240-5578Fax (609) 228-5115

Attorneys for Plaintiffs,STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO

STEVEN WRONKO andCOLLENE WRONKO, (Husband and

Wife) ,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

NANCY MARTIN, ( Individually andin her official capacity as theMayor of Helmetta); BOROUGH OFHELMETTA , HELMETTA POLICEDEPARTMENT, ROBERT MANNEY ,( Individually and in hisofficial capacity as the PoliceDirector of Helmetta) , RICHARDRECINE , ( Individually and inhis official capacity as theSpecial Police Officer ofHelmetta Police Department );CHAD LOCKMAN ( Individually andin his official capacity as theSpecial Police Officer ofHelmetta Police Department ); HAROLD MESSLER , ( Individuallyand in his official capacity asthe Special Police Officer ofHelmetta Police Department ) GENE SCHEICHER , ( Individuallyand in his official capacity asthe Special Police Officer ofHelmetta Police Department ); DEVON GANNON, ( Individually andin his official capacity as theSpecial Police Officer ofHelmetta Police Department );

MICHAEL BALTAZAR, ( Individuallyand in his official capacity as

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION

MIDDLESEX COUNTY

DOCKET NO: __________________

CIVIL ACTION

COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND


2/29


(2)

the Special Police Officer ofHelmetta Police Department );

MICHAEL RZIGALINSKI,( Individually and in hisofficial capacity as theSpecial Police Officer ofHelmetta Police Department ); KYLE WORSTER, ( Individually andin his official capacity as theSpecial Police Officer ofHelmetta Police Department ) SEAN SIGNORELLO, ( Individuallyand in his official capacity asthe Special Police Officer ofHelmetta Police Department ); BRANDON METZ,( Individually andin his official capacity as

Animal Control Officer forHelmetta Regional AnimalShelter) ; MICHAEL METZ ,( Individually and in hiscapacity as agent) ; MICHALCIELESZ, ( Individually and inhis official capacity asDirector of the HelmettaRegional Animal Shelter) RICHARD CIELESZ, ( Individuallyand in his official capacity asAssistant Director of theHelmetta Regional AnimalShelter) , HELMETTA REGIONAL

ANIMAL SHELTER , N.J.S.P.C.A.,NEW JERSEY STATE HUMANE POLICEand FRANK RIZZO, ( Individuallyand in his official capacity asthe Chief Law EnforcementOfficer for the New JerseyHumane Police/ N.J.S.P.C.A. ) ,

Defendants.

The Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO , (Husband

and Wife) by their undersigned attorney, Edward Harrington

Heyburn, Esq. allege as follows:


3/29


(3)

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO , are

husband and wife and residents of Spotswood, New Jersey at all

times relevant during this Complaint;

2. Defendant, NANCY MARTIN, is a New Jersey resident and is

being sued individually and in her official capacity as the

Mayor of Helmetta;

3. Defendant, BOROUGH OF HELMETTA , is an incorporated

subdivision of the State of New Jersey in Middlesex County;

4. Defendant, HELMETTA POLICE DEPARTMENT , is a department

within the Borough of Helmetta, New Jersey;

5. Defendant, ROBERT MANNEY , is a New Jersey resident and

is being sued i ndividually and in his official capacity as the

Police Director of Helmetta Police Department;

6. Defendant , RICHARD RECINE , is a New Jersey resident

and is being sued i ndividually and in his official capacity as a

Special Police Officer of Helmetta Police Department ;

7. Defendant , CHAD LOCKMAN is a New Jersey resident and

is being sued individually and in his official capacity as a

Police Officer of Helmetta Police Department ;

8. Defendant, HAROLD MESSLER , is a New Jersey resident

and is being sued individually and in his official capacity as a



4/29


(4)

9. Defendant, GENE SCHEICHER , (is a New Jersey resident



10. Defendant, DEVON GANNON, is a New Jersey resident and



11. Defendant, MICHAEL BALTAZAR, is a New Jersey resident



12. Defendant, MICHAEL RZIGALINSKI, is a New Jersey

resident and is being sued individually and in his official

capacity as a Police Officer of Helmetta Police Department ;

13. Defendant, KYLE WORSTER, is a New Jersey resident and



14. Defendant, SEAN SIGNORELLO, is a New Jersey resident



15. Defendant , HELMETTA REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER , is a

department and subdivision of the Borough of Helmetta;

16. Defendant, BRANDON METZ, is a New Jersey resident and

is being sued in his official capacity as Animal Control Officer

for Helmetta Regional Animal Shelter;


5/29


(5)

17. Defendant, MICHAEL METZ , is a New Jersey resident and

is being sued individually and in his capacity as an agent for

Defendant, NANCY MARTIN ;

18. Defendant, MICHAL CIELESZ, is a New Jersey resident

and is being sued in her official capacity as Director of the

Helmetta Regional Animal Shelter;

19. Defendant, RICHARD CIELESZ, is a New Jersey resident

and is being sued in his official capacity as Assistant Director

of the Helmetta Regional Animal Shelter);

20. Defendants, N.J.S.P.C.A. and NEW JERSEY STATE HUMANE

POLICE are incorporated, political subdivision of the State of

New Jersey;

21. Defendant, FRANK RIZZO, is a New Jersey resident and

is being sued in his official capacity as the Chief Law

Enforcement Officer for the N.J.S.P.C.A.;

22. Defendants, JOHN DOES 1-20 , are fictitious names for

presently unidentified people who are legally responsible for

the actions within this complaint;

23. Defendants, ABC COMPANY 1-20 , are fictitious names for

presently unidentified entities who are legally responsible for

the actions within this complaint;


6/29


(6)

III. FACTS

24. At all times relevant to this Complaint, all

Defendants acted in their official capacities and under the

color of law;

ANIMAL FLIPING MILL

25. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant,

NANCY MARTIN established Defendant, HELMETTA REGIONAL ANIMAL

SHELTER with the purpose of obtaining animals from out of state

to sell;

26. Defendant, NANCY MARTIN used Defendant, HELMETTA

REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER to give patronage jobs to her son,

BRANDON METZ and her associates, Defendant, MICHAL CIELESZ and

RICHARD CIELESZ;

27. In order to appear to make money for Defendant, MICHAL

CIELESZ and RICHARD CIELESZ neglected the animals in their care,

denying the animals food and medical attention;

28. On or about, April 14, 2014, Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO

and COLLENE WRONKO purchased a dog from Defendant , HELMETTA

REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER ;

29. Thereafter, Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE

WRONKO learned that the dog was seriously ill and unfit for sale;

30. The Plaintiffs were advised by numerous people that the

Defendant , HELMETTA REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER neglected and abused

animals which they later sold to the public for profit;


7/29


(7)

31. Upon investigation, Plaintiffs learned that Defendant,

NANCY MARTIN used her authority as Mayor of Helmetta to give

patronage jobs to her son, Defendant, BRANDON METZ and her

associates , Defendant, MICHAL CIELESZ and RICHARD CIELESZ at

Defendant, HELMETTA REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER;

32. Based on information and belief, Defendant, BRANDON

METZ’s job was unionized;

33. Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO complained

to Helmetta Township officials about the condition of Defendant,

HELMETTA REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER ;

34. Pursuant to New Jersey’s Open Public Record Act

(N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq .), Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE

WRONKO made numerous request for public records;

35. Defendants, NANCY MARTIN and BOROUGH OF HELMETTA

illegally denied Plaintiffs’ OPRA request;

36. Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO sued

Defendant, BOROUGH OF HELMETTA for various violations of OPRA

(DOCKET #: L-002966-15);

37. Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO prevailed

and obtained a judgment against Defendant, BOROUGH OF HELMETTA

requiring them to turn over the documents requested under OPRA

and pay attorney fees;


8/29


(8)

38. On or about August 1, 2014, Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO

started to record the conditions at Defendant, HELMETTA REGIONAL

ANIMAL SHELTER ;

39. On or about the same day, Defendant, NANCY MARTIN

became aware of Plaintiff, STEVEN WRONKO’s activity and the fact

that it threatened her activity at Defendant, HELMETTA REGIONAL

ANIMAL SHELTER including but not limited to supplying patronage

jobs, transporting animals from other states and neglecting

animals;

40. On or about the same day, Defendant, NANCY MARTIN

ordered Defendant, Defendant, ROBERT MANNEY, as the Police

Director of Defendant, HELMETTA POLICE DEPARTMENT , to remove

Plaintiff, STEVEN WRONKO from Defendant, HELMETTA REGIONAL ANIMAL

SHELTER and prevent him from taking pictures that would evidence

the animal abuse and neglect at the shelter;

41. Defendant, ROBERT MANNEY, as the Police Director of

Defendant, HELMETTA POLICE DEPARTMENT ordered his subordinates,

Defendants, CHAD LOCKMAN, HAROLD MESSLER , GENE SCHEICHER , DEVON

GANNON, MICHAEL BALTAZAR, MICHAEL RZIGALINSKI, KYLE WORSTER, and

SEAN SIGNORELLO to prevent Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE

WRONKO from taking pictures, videos or otherwise collect evidence

of abuse at Defendant, HELMETTA REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER;


9/29


(9)

THE MILLER POLICY

42. This order is hereinafter referred to as the “Miller

Policy”;

43. Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO led public

protests to expose the animal abuse at Defendant, HELMETTA

REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER by Defendant, MICHAL CIELESZ, RICHARD

CIELESZ and BRANDON METZ;

44. Defendant, MICHAEL METZ , acting as an agent of

Defendant, NANCY MARTIN and in conjunction with “The Miller

Policy,” organized counter protest to disrupt and prevent

Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO as well as others

from peaceably assembling and protesting the actions of

Defendants, NANCY MARTIN and HELMETTA REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER ;

45. Despite “The Miller Policy” Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO

and COLLENE WRONKO revealed widespread corruption and abuse at

Defendant, HELMETTA REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER ;

46. On November 26, 2014, Defendant, NANCY MARTIN sent an

email to Defendant, ROBERT MANNEY setting forth the tenets of “The

Miller Policy”;

47. A copy of Defendant, NANCY MARTIN’s November 26, 2014

email (hereinafter “Miller Email”) is attached as Exhibit “A” and

incorporated by reference;

48. The “Miller Email” directed Defendant, ROBERT MANNEY to

order the Helmetta Police Department Police Officers to:


10/29


(10)

a. Keep Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO

off Helmetta public property;

b. Keep Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO

from attending Helmetta Borough Council meetings;

c. Prevent Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE

WRONKO and others from bring up evidence of animal abuse;

d. Have Defendant, DEVON GANNON write summonses to the

mayor’s opponents for cursing and for driving through town;

(See a copy of Exhibit “A”);

49. In the “Miller Email” Defendant, NANCY MARTIN advised

Defendant, ROBERT MANNEY that she would speak with Judge Christine

Heitmann who would speak to Judge William Feingold “about this

case so nothing is thrown out.” (See a copy of Exhibit “A”);

50. In the “Miller Email” Defendant, NANCY MARTIN also

advised Defendant, ROBERT MANNEY that she would speak with the “NB

prosecutor.”

51. Based on information and belief, the identity of the “NB

prosecutor” is Middlesex County Assistant Prosecutor, Cindy

Glaser;

52. Middlesex County Assistant Prosecutor, Cindy Glaser is

listed as a reference on the Helmetta employment application of

Defendant, RICHARD CIELESZ ;


11/29


(11)

53. In furtherance of “The Miller Policy” and pursuant to

the “Miller Email” Defendants, DEVON GANNON, MICHAEL BALTAZAR,

GENE SCHEICHER issued trumped up charges against Plaintiffs,

STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO predicated on cursing, resisting

arrest, obstruction of justice and harassment;

54. Defendant, NANCY MARTIN conspired with Defendant,

ROBERT MANNEY to target, monitor, investigate, charge and arrest

Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO and use Defendants,

HELMETTA POLICE DEPARTMENT , including Defendants, RICHARD RECINE ,

CHAD LOCKMAN, HAROLD MESSLER , GENE SCHEICHER , DEVON GANNON,

MICHAEL BALTAZAR, MICHAEL RZIGALINSKI, KYLE WORSTER, SEAN

SIGNORELLO. See Exhibit “A” ;

55. In January of 2015, Judge Christine Heitmann held an ex

parte meeting lasting one and one half hours, with Defendants,

NANCY MARTIN, MICHAEL METZ, DEVON GANNON, GENE SCHEICHER and

Magdalena Metz, consistent with the “Miller Email”;

56. On the same day, Judge Christine Heitmann dismissed all

charges against Defendant, MICHAEL METZ and Magdalena Metz and

refused to conduct a hearing as to probable cause or otherwise

allow Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO 1 to demonstrate

probable cause by showing their videotapes;

1 Steven and Collene Wronko filed complaints against Michael Metz in HelmettaMunicipal Court which was transferred with the cases against the Wronkos toNorth Brunswick Municipal Court where Judge Christine Heitmann and JudgeWilliam Feingold sit.


12/29


(12)

57. Thereafter, Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE

WRONKO discovered that Defendant, NANCY MARTIN had appointed Judge

Christine Heitmann as an alternative judger to Helmetta

Municipal Court; on Plaintiffs’ motion, Judge Heitmann recused

herself from the case as she had a conflict of interest with the

Borough of Helmetta. 2 See Exhibit “B”;

58. Pursuant to the “Miller Email” Defendant, NANCY MARTIN

orchestrated a counter-protest which was led by her son,

Defendant, MICHAEL METZ and purposely done to prevent Plaintiffs,

STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO and others from demonstrating

against Defendant, NANCY MARTIN, BOROUGH OF HELMETTA and HELMETTA

REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER ;

59. Pursuant to “The Miller Policy” and the “Miller

Email,” Defendant, NANCY MARTIN ordered members of Defendant,

HELMETTA POLICE DEPARTMENT to only issue summonses and arrest

protestors and not arrest the counter-protestors she organized;

See Exhibit “A”;

DENIAL OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND VIDEO RECORDING

60. On August 1, 2014, Defendant, NANCY MARTIN directed

Defendant, ROBERT MANNEY and members of Defendant, HELMETTA POLICE

DEPARTMENT to prevent Plaintiff, STEVEN WRONKO from video

recording inside Defendant, HELMETTA REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER;

2 Defendant, Nancy Martin was a complainant in one of the summonses againstSteven Wronko that was before Judge Heitmann. Judge Heitmann dismissed allcharges against Defendant, Michael Metz who is the son of Nancy Martin.


13/29


(13)

61. On August 4, 2014, Defendant, RICHARD RECINE denied

Plaintiff, STEVEN WRONKO access to a Helmetta Public Building

because he was exercising his First Amendment Rights and video

recording in a public place;

62. When Plaintiff, STEVEN WRONKO told Defendant, RICHARD

RECINE that he was not permitted to take video recordings in a

public place, Defendant, RICHARD RECINE responded, “"Obama has

decimated the friggin' constitution, so I don't give a damn.

Because if he doesn't follow the Constitution we don't have to.

Our president has decimated the constitution, then we don't have

to." (https://youtu.be/AoNR9RdA9bw);

63. Thereafter, Defendant, RICHARD RECINE acting under the

color of law, using his power as a police officer for the

Borough of Helmetta and in furtherance of the “Martin Plan”

removed Plaintiff, STEVEN WRONKO from the public building and

prevented him from exercising his rights under the First

Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and New Jersey State

Constitution;

64. Thereafter, Defendant, NANCY MARTIN directed that

Defendant, ROBERT MANNEY and members of Defendant, HELMETTA POLICE

DEPARTMENT to ban Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO

from Defendant, HELMETTA REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER;

65. In furtherance of the “Martin Plan,” on August 27,

2014, Defendant, NANCY MARTIN , introduced “ORDINANCE - 2014 – 7


14/29


(14)

This will be an Ordinance prohibiting taking of pictures and

recordings in the buildings of Helmetta and will be supplied by

Borough Attorney David Clark” which was designed to prevent

Plaintiff, STEVEN WRONKO from investigating the actions of

Defendants, NANCY MARTIN, ROBERT MANNEY, BOROUGH OF HELMETTA,

HELMETTA POLICE DEPARTMENT, HELMETTA REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER,

BRANDON METZ, MICHAEL METZ, MICHAL CIELESZ, RICHAED CIELESZ,

CHAD LOCKMAN, HAROLD MESSLER , GENE SCHEICHER , DEVON GANNON,

MICHAEL BALTAZAR, MICHAEL RZIGALINSKI, KYLE WORSTER, and SEAN

SIGNORELLO;

Defendant, Nancy Martin’s Campaign Material

66. In October of 2015, Defendant, NANCY MARTIN distributed

a series of documents in her campaign for re-election, which

invaded Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO’s privacy and

portrayed them in a false light;

67. Specifically, Defendant, NANCY MARTIN disseminated the

following documents:

a. A document entitled, “Truth About Taxpayers” referencing

Plaintiffs’ lawsuit suggesting that Plaintiffs were committing

nefarious acts by suing Helmetta and costing the taxpayer money.

See Exhibit “C”;

b. A composite containing portions of the first page of

each of complaints filed by Plaintiffs against Helmetta for

violation of the OPRA. See Exhibit “D”;


15/29


(15)

c. Pictures of Plaintiffs protesting in an area where

political opponents of Defendant, NANCY MARTIN were also

protesting. See Exhibit “E”;

68. The above documents invaded Plaintiffs’ privacy by

placing them in a false light and suggesting to the Helmetta

community that Plaintiffs acted inappropriately and caused the tax

payers money;

69. In the above document dissemination, Defendant, NANCY

MARTIN did not advise the tax payers that the Superior Court of

New Jersey found against the Borough of Helmetta and in favor of

the Plaintiffs and that the Court ordered that Helmetta pay the

Plaintiffs’ attorney fees because Helmetta failed to comply with

the Open Public Records Act;

Defendants, N.J.S.P.C.A. and Frank Rizzo and New Jersey State

Humane Police Social Media

70. Defendants , N.J.S.P.C.A. and FRANK RIZZO (Chief of the

New Jersey State Humane Police for N.J.S.P.C.A.) and NEW JERSEY

STATE HUMANE POLICE operate a public forum on Facebook called,

“NJ SPCA” (hereinafter referred to as “NJ SPCA Group”;

71. At all times relevant, “NJ SPCA Group” acted under the

auspices of Defendants, N.J.S.P.C.A. and NEW JERSEY STATE HUMANE

POLICE ;


16/29


(16)

72. At all times relevant, “NJ SPCA Group” invited public

commentary as well as solicited donations on and for Defendants,

N.J.S.P.C.A. and NEW JERSEY STATE HUMANE POLICE ;

73. At all times relevant, Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and

COLLENE WRONKO posted comments criticizing Defendants,

N.J.S.P.C.A. and NEW JERSEY STATE HUMANE POLICE on the “NJ SPCA

Group”;


POLICE removed/deleted Plaintiffs comments as well as other

posts critical of these defendants from the “NJ SPCA Group”;


POLICE thereafter banned Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE

WRONKO from the “NJ SPCA Group.” See Exhibit “F”;

76. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiffs,

STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO made lawful request to Defendant,

N.J.S.P.C. for document pursuant to the New Jersey’s Open Public

Record Act (N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq .);

77. Defendants , N.J.S.P.C.A. and FRANK RIZZO (Chief of the

New Jersey State Humane Police for N.J.S.P.C.A.) and NEW JERSEY

STATE HUMANE POLICE operate a public forum on Twitter under the

name “@NJSPCA_Colonel”;

78. On September 15, 2015, Defendants, FRANK RIZZO,

N.J.S.P.C.A. and NEW JERSEY STATE HUMANE POLICE used their

Twitter account “@NJSPCA_Colonel” to retaliate against


17/29


(17)

Plaintiff, COLLENE WRONKO and invade her privacy by portraying her

in a false light;

79. Specifically, Defendants, FRANK RIZZO, N.J.S.P.C.A.

and NEW JERSEY STATE HUMANE POLICE Tweeted, “A few detractors

have decided to inundate the NJSPCA with OPRA requests. What a

sad few led by crazy wronko and her cronies.” See Exhibit “G”;

III. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

(Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights to Freedom of Speech)

80. Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO

incorporate the aforementioned paragraphs herein as if set forth

at length;

81. The actions of all Defendants violated the Plaintiffs’

rights to freedom of speech pursuant to the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution, the New Jersey Civil

Rights Act (N.J.A.C. 10:5-1, et seq.) and the N.J. Const. art. I,

§ 6;

WHEREFORE , Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO

request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against

all Defendants, jointly and severally, and award Plaintiffs:

a. Compensatory Damages;

b. Punitive Damages;


18/29


(18)

c. Statutory Damages;

d. Attorney Fees;

e. Costs and interest.

COUNT II

(Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights to freely to assemble together,to consult for the common good, to make known their opinions to

their representatives, and to petition for redress ofgrievances)



at length;

83. The actions of all Defendants violated the Plaintiffs

right to freely to assemble together, to consult for the common

good, to make known their opinions to their representatives, and

to petition for redress of grievances pursuant to the First and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the New

Jersey Civil Rights Act (N.J.A.C. 10:5-1, et seq.) and the N.J.

Const. art. I, § 18;








19/29


(19)

d. Attorney Fees;


COUNT III

(Violation of Plaintiffs’ Right to Due Process)



at length;


rights to due process pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution, the New Jersey Civil

Rights Act (N.J.A.C. 10:5-1, et seq.) and the N.J. Const. art. I,

§ 7;







d. Attorney Fees;e. Costs and interest.

COUNT IV


20/29


(20)

(Violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act,N.J.S.A. 10:6-1, et seq. )



at length;

87. All Defendants, acting under color of law, interfered

and/or attempted to interfere by threats, intimidation and/or

coercion with the exercise or enjoyment by Plaintiffs, STEVEN

WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO’s substantive due process and/or equal

protection rights, privileges and/or immunities secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States, or any substantive

rights, privileges and/or immunities secured by the Constitution

or laws of this State;


rights pursuant to the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (N.J.A.C. 10:5-

1, et seq.) and the N.J. Const. art. I;







d. Attorney Fees;



21/29


(21)

COUNT V

(Failure to Train, Supervise or Discipline)



at length;

90. For all purposes under this Complaint, Defendants, NANCY

MARTIN, BOROUGH OF HELMETTA, ROBERT MANNEY, HELMETTA POLICE

DEPARTMENT, FRANK RIZZO, N.J.S.P.C.A. AND THE NEW JERSEY HUMANE

POLICE (hereinafter “ SUPERVISING DEFENDANTS ”) were supervisors and

policy makers for their individual governmental organizations;

91. Each of the SUPERVISING DEFENDANTS had a legal duty to

train, supervise and discipline various defendants named in this

Complaint;

92. The SUPERVISING DEFENDANTS failed to train, supervise

and discipline the various defendants under their supervision;

93. The SUPERVISING DEFENDANTS knew to a ‘moral certainty’

than the various defendants under their supervision would

confront a situation or situations as set forth above;

94. The situation or situations as set forth above

presented the various defendants under their supervision with a


22/29


(22)

difficult choice of the sort that training or supervision will

make less difficult;

95. The SUPERVISING DEFENDANTS knew that the wrong choice

by the various defendants under their supervision will

frequently cause the deprivation of a citizen’s constitutional

rights.

96. The SUPERVISING DEFENDANTS ’ failure to train, supervise

and discipline various defendants under their supervision

resulted in the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ civil and

constitutional rights as set forth above;

97. The actions of the SUPERVISING DEFENDANTS violated the

Plaintiffs rights pursuant to the New Jersey Civil Rights Act

(N.J.A.C. 10:5-1, et seq.) and the N.J. Const. art. I;



the SUPERVISING DEFENDANTS , jointly and severally, and award

Plaintiffs:




d. Attorney Fees;e. Costs and interest.

COUNT VI


23/29


(23)

(Unconstitutional Policymaking)



at length;

99. For all purposes under this Complaint, Defendants, NANCY

MARTIN and ROBERT MANNEY were “policymakers” for the BOROUGH OF

HELMETTA and HELMETTA POLICE DEPARTMENT respectively;

100. Defendants, NANCY MARTIN and ROBERT MANNEY developed

policies orally and in writing for the purpose of depriving

Plaintiffs of their civil and constitutional rights;

101. These policies were adopted and implemented by

Defendants, MICHAL CIELESZ, RICHARD CIELESZ, BRANDON METZ and

MICHAEL METZ as well as Defendants, RICHARD RECINE, CHAD LOCKMAN,

HAROLD MESSLER , GENE SCHEICHER , DEVON GANNON, MICHAEL BALTAZAR,

MICHAEL RZIGALINSKI, KYLE WORSTER, and SEAN SIGNORELLO;

102. The implementation of the unconstitutional policies

denied Plaintiffs their civil and constitutional rights;



Defendants, NANCY MARTIN and ROBERT MANNEY , jointly and severally,

and award Plaintiffs:





24/29


(24)

d. Attorney Fees;


COUNT VII

(Invasion of privacy/False light)



at length;

104. The actions of Defendant, NANCY MARTIN as set forth

above, invaded Plaintiffs’ privacy and portrayed the Plaintiffs in

a false light;

105. As a result of this defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs have

been embarrassed, humiliated and subject to public scorn and as

such have suffered damages;



Defendant, NANCY MARTIN , and award Plaintiffs:



c. Statutory Damages;d. Attorney Fees;



25/29


(25)

COUNT VIII

(Civil Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights)



at length;

107. Defendant, NANCY MARTIN conspired with Defendant,

MICHAEL METZ to violate Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE

WRONKO’s civil rights by counter-protesting. Intentionally

interfering with Plaintiffs right to freely assemble together, to

consult for the common good, to make known their opinions to their

representatives, and to petition for redress of grievances

pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (N.J.A.C.

10:5-1, et seq.) and the N.J. Const. art. I, § 18;

108. Defendant, ROBERT MANNEY aided and abetted the civil

conspiracy by directing members of the Defendant, HELMETTA POLICE

DEPARTMENT to arrest protestors and not arrest counter-protestors

pursuant to the “Miller Email”;




26/29


(26)

Defendants, NANCY MARTIN , MICHAEL METZ, ROBERT MANNEY and HELMETTA

POLICE DEPARTMENT and award Plaintiffs:




d. Attorney Fees;


COUNT IX

(Invasion of privacy/False light)



at length;

110. The actions of Defendant, FRANK RIZZO as set forth

above, invaded Plaintiffs’ privacy and portrayed the Plaintiffs in

a false light;

111. As a result of this defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs have

been embarrassed, humiliated and subject to public scorn and as

such have suffered damages;



Defendant, FRANK RIZZO , and award Plaintiffs:




27/29


(27)


d. Attorney Fees;


EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff(s),

STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO

Dated: March 23, 2016

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all issues.

NOTICE OF TRIAL COUNSEL

Please take notice that Edward Harrington Heyburn, Esq. is

hereby designated as Trial Counsel in the above captioned

matter, pursuant to Rule 4:25 et. seq.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirements of Rule 4:5 1 (NOTICE OF OTHER

ACTIONS), I, the undersigned, do hereby certify to the best of

my knowledge, information and belief, that except as hereinafter

indicated, the subject matter of the controversy referred to in


28/29


(28)

the within pleading is not the subject of any other Cause of

Action, pending in any other Court, or of a pending Arbitration

Proceeding, nor is any other Cause of Action or Arbitration

Proceeding contemplated;

1. OTHER ACTIONS PENDING?.......................YES ___ NO X

A. If YES Parties to other Pending Actions.

B. In my opinion, the following parties should be

joined in the within pending Cause of Action.

2. OTHER ACTIONS CONTEMPLATED?...................YES ___ NO X

A. If YES Parties contemplated to be joined, in

other Causes of Action.

3. ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS PENDING?..............YES ___ NO X

A. If YES Parties to Arbitration Proceedings.

B. In my opinion, the following parties should be joined in the

pending Arbitration Proceedings.

4. OTHER ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS CONTEMPLATED?....YES ___ NO X

A. If YES Parties contemplated to be joined to

Arbitration Proceedings.

In the event that during the pendency of the within Cause

of Action, I shall become aware of any change as to any facts

stated herein, I shall file an amended certification and serve a


29/29

copy thereof on all other parties (or their attorneys) who have

appeared in said Cause of Action.

EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff(s),

STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO

Dated: March 23, 2016

helmetta complaint

Documents