## Open

HOST: This is a reading of a private case file. Rodriguez versus D'Antonio. The complainant is Marlene Rodriguez of the Bronx, New York. The accused is Frank Patrick D'Antonio of Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. Proposed counsel for the complainant is Nathan A. White, Esquire, of Oakland County, Michigan, to be admitted pro hac vice in New York and New Jersey. Everything you are about to hear is a draft prepared on the tenth of October, twenty twenty-six. Nothing has been filed. No docket number exists except the one on the restraining order the accused obtained against Ms. Rodriguez. The reader will say "to be filled in" wherever a date, a number or an address is still to come from the evidence.
HOST: The file has seven documents. First, the legal brief: the parties, the facts, jurisdiction and venue, the offenses with their elements, the restraining order, the evidence, the timeline, and what Ms. Rodriguez must supply. Then the six draft instruments: proposed counts in indictment form for Bronx County; a family offense petition for Bronx Family Court; the New Jersey complaint and a letter to the Bergen County Prosecutor; a motion to dissolve the accused's restraining order; a federal referral; and the pro hac vice package for Mr. White. The brief first.

## Rodriguez v. D'Antonio , Legal brief and case file

HOST: Prepared 10 October 2026 for Marlene Rodriguez and proposed counsel. Working draft, revised as evidence arrives. Nothing here has been filed. No docket number exists yet except the accused's own restraining-order matter, whose number is on the papers served on Ms. Rodriguez. Proposed counsel for the complainant: Nathan A. White, Esq., Oakland County, Michigan, to be admitted pro hac vice in the New York and New Jersey proceedings with local counsel of record (22 NYCRR section 520.11; N.J. Court Rule 1:21-2). Criminal charges are brought by the District Attorney and the County Prosecutor; Mr. White represents Ms. Rodriguez as complainant's counsel and files the civil applications (order of protection; motion against the accused's restraining order).
HOST: 1. Parties. 
HOST: Complainant. Marlene Rodriguez, born 29 October 1994, 1833 Story Avenue, Bronx, New York 10473. Phone +1 646 363 4295. E-mail vivalamarlene@gmail.com. NYPD 43rd Precinct (900 Fteley Avenue). Accused. Frank Patrick D'Antonio, born 4 April 1992, of Franklin Lakes, Bergen County, New Jersey (street address to be confirmed from his restraining-order petition, which carries it). Identified as the caller by Ms. Rodriguez and by Christopher Johns on 10 October 2026.
HOST: Relationship. The two dated and saw each other for roughly one year, never lived together, never formally a couple. That is an "intimate relationship" under New York law (Family Court Act section 812(1)(e); CPL section 530.11(1)(e): cohabitation and formal status are expressly not required) and a "dating relationship" under New Jersey's Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d); Andrews v. Rutherford, 363 N.J. Super. 252 (Ch. Div. 2003)). Existing court order. The accused petitioned for and holds a restraining order against Ms. Rodriguez, believed issued in Bergen County, New Jersey (Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family Part, "FV" docket). The order binds her, not him. Its docket number, date and type (temporary or final) come from the papers served on her. Such orders are confidential (N.J.S.A. 2C:25-33) and cannot be looked up by outsiders.
HOST: Reporting party. Christopher Johns, New York, acting with Ms. Rodriguez's recorded permission (Exhibit C).
HOST: 2. Statement of facts (as presently known). 
HOST: 1. Between about May 2026 and the end of July 2026, the accused, from New Jersey, repeatedly contacted Ms. Rodriguez, in New York, by telephone call, voicemail, SMS text message and WhatsApp. 2. Two voicemails are in hand (Exhibits A and B). In the first he says, among other things, "it doesn't take this long to get fucked and make videos of it now you gotta go to jail because you broke the no contact order." In the second he says, "Can you call me and actually make this good this time? I know you've given me better blowjobs than that first." 3. At the time of these messages the accused held, or was seeking, a restraining order against Ms. Rodriguez. The first voicemail invokes that order as a threat ("you gotta go to jail") while itself initiating contact.
HOST: 4. The remaining calls, texts and WhatsApp messages from May to July 2026 are on Ms. Rodriguez's phone and will be added to this file (see "What Ms. Rodriguez supplies"). 5. On 10 October 2026 Ms. Rodriguez exported the two voicemails to Mr. Johns and gave her recorded consent to sharing them with a lawyer and a private investigator.
HOST: 3. Jurisdiction and venue. 
HOST: New York. A statement made by telephone from one jurisdiction to a person in another is deemed made in both (CPL section 20.60(1)). New York has jurisdiction because the result element, receipt by the victim, occurred here (CPL section 20.20(2)(b)); venue lies in Bronx County (CPL section 20.40(1)). Misdemeanors are prosecuted in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County; felonies in Supreme Court, Bronx County, on a grand jury indictment. Because the accused lives out of state, an arrest on a New York warrant requires rendition under CPL article 570, which in practice is sought for felonies and domestic-violence matters.
HOST: New Jersey. The conduct was committed in New Jersey, so New Jersey has jurisdiction (N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(a)(1)); venue is Bergen County. Indictable offenses (stalking, fourth-degree crimes) go to the Superior Court, Law Division, Criminal Part, Hackensack, through the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office; harassment, a petty disorderly persons offense, is heard in the Franklin Lakes Municipal Court. The accused lives there: arrest and service are straightforward.
HOST: Federal. Interstate telephone calls and texts fall under 47 U.S.C. section 223; a course of conduct over a facility of interstate commerce (telephone, SMS, WhatsApp) falls under 18 U.S.C. section 2261A(2). Venue for a continuing offense lies in any district where it began, continued or was completed (18 U.S.C. section 3237(a)): the Southern District of New York (Bronx County) or the District of New Jersey (Newark). Referral is to the FBI New York or Newark field office and the corresponding United States Attorney. 18 U.S.C. section 875(c) (interstate threat to injure) is not charged on Exhibits A and B; it is reserved for any threat of bodily harm in the remaining messages.
HOST: Recommended order of doors. (1) NYPD 43rd Precinct report with a Domestic Incident Report; (2) Bronx County District Attorney, Domestic Violence Bureau; (3) Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, Special Victims Unit, in parallel; (4) Bronx Family Court petition for an order of protection in Ms. Rodriguez's favor; (5) motion in the Bergen County Family Part to dissolve the accused's order against her; (6) federal referral once the full May to July record is assembled.
HOST: 4. Offenses, with elements. 
HOST: New York. 
HOST: Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree, Penal Law section 240.30(2) (class A misdemeanor): with intent to harass or threaten another person, makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication. One count per call or voicemail. Exhibits A and B each satisfy every element on their face. Stalking in the Fourth Degree, Penal Law section 120.45(1) (class B misdemeanor): intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, knowing or reasonably should know it is likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to her physical health, safety or property. section 120.45(2): course of conduct consisting of telephoning or initiating communication after being clearly informed to cease, causing material harm to mental or emotional health.
HOST: Harassment in the Second Degree, Penal Law section 240.26(3) (violation): course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys and serves no legitimate purpose. Criminal Contempt, Penal Law sections 215.50 / 215.51: not available against the accused on present facts (the only order is his, against her). Available the moment Ms. Rodriguez holds her own order and he contacts her again: section 215.51(b)(iv) (telephoning in violation of an order of protection with intent to harass) is a class E felony.
HOST: New Jersey. 
HOST: Harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a) and (c) (petty disorderly persons offense): communications at extremely inconvenient hours, in offensively coarse language, or in any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or a course of alarming conduct with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy. Stalking, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10(b) (fourth-degree crime): purposefully or knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear for her safety or suffer other emotional distress. section 2C:12-10(c) raises it to the third degree if committed in violation of an existing court order prohibiting the behavior. Contempt, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9(b): not available against him unless the order is mutual.
HOST: Federal. 
HOST: 47 U.S.C. section 223(a)(1)(C), (E): in interstate communications, makes a telephone call or uses a telecommunications device with intent to abuse, threaten or harass; or makes repeated telephone calls solely to harass. Up to two years. 18 U.S.C. section 2261A(2)(B): with intent to harass or intimidate, uses an interactive computer service, electronic communication service or any facility of interstate commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes, attempts to cause, or would reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress. Up to five years. 18 U.S.C. section 2262: only if the accused crossed state lines, or caused the victim to, in violation of a protection order. Not presently indicated.
HOST: 5. The accused's restraining order against Ms. Rodriguez. 
HOST: This is the hinge of the case and it works in her favor once handled correctly. 1. She must not reply to him in any form. A restraining order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act binds the defendant named in it, Ms. Rodriguez. Any call, text, WhatsApp message, social-media reaction or third-party message from her to him is a violation by her (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9(b), a fourth-degree crime with mandatory jail on a second conviction). Exhibit A, "you broke the no contact order," reads as an attempt to provoke exactly that. From today: no contact, no reply, every message from him saved and forwarded to counsel. 2. His contact is not a violation by him, unless the order is mutual. It is, however, prosecutable harassment and stalking, and it is the best evidence that he is not in fear of her.
HOST: 3. Motion to dissolve his order. In New Jersey a defendant may move to dissolve a final restraining order on a showing of changed circumstances and good cause (N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(d); Carfagno v. Carfagno, 288 N.J. Super. 424 (Ch. Div. 1995), setting out the factors: the plaintiff's consent, whether the plaintiff fears the defendant, the nature of the relationship today, contempt convictions, the defendant's good faith, and so on). A plaintiff who calls the defendant to demand sex and threatens her with jail does not fear her. Exhibits A and B are the core of that motion. If the order is still a temporary one, the same material is the defense at the final-hearing.
HOST: 4. Her own order. Nothing in his order prevents her from obtaining her own. In the Bronx, Family Court Act article 8 (family offense petition; "intimate relationship" jurisdiction under section 812(1)(e)); the petition is heard the same day for a temporary order. In Bergen County, a temporary restraining order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. His messages are the predicate acts (harassment, stalking).
HOST: 6. Evidence. 
HOST: Exhibit: A. Item: Voicemail, 19.7 s, "you gotta go to jail because you broke the no contact order" (file 01-no-contact-order-19s.m4a, SHA-256 0b2d6e1d7ba0ac). Status: in hand; original date, time and caller number to be added from the Phone app. Exhibit: B. Item: Voicemail, 18.0 s, "actually make this good this time" (file 02-call-me-18s.m4a, SHA-256 249f1983791795). Status: in hand; same. Exhibit: C. Item: Ms. Rodriguez's recorded permission, 14 s (chris-question-14s.ogg, SHA-256 bb3cb183ac4a6b4). Status: in hand. Exhibit: D. Item: Voicemail list screenshots: caller number, date, time, duration for every voicemail from him. Status: needed from Ms. Rodriguez. Exhibit: E. Item: May to July 2026 record: WhatsApp chat export with media, SMS screenshots, call log screenshots. Status: needed from Ms. Rodriguez.
HOST: Exhibit: F. Item: The restraining order served on her (every page) and any hearing notice. Status: needed from Ms. Rodriguez. Exhibit: G. Item: Any police report or Domestic Incident Report already made by either party. Status: needed if any. Exhibit: H. Item: Carrier records for both numbers. Status: by prosecutor's subpoena. Exhibit: I. Item: Private investigator's report tying the caller number and voice to the accused. Status: after D. Transcripts of A and B were produced by two independent speech-recognition engines with identical output and were then checked by ear. Both New York and New Jersey are one-party-consent states; a voicemail is in any case a message the caller left for the recipient, so no consent issue arises.
HOST: 7. Timeline. 
HOST: Date: ~2025 to 2026. Event: Dating relationship, about one year. Source: Ms. Rodriguez. Date: (date, to be filled in). Event: Accused obtains a temporary restraining order against Ms. Rodriguez in Bergen County. Source: Exhibit F. Date: (date, to be filled in). Event: Final restraining order hearing, if held. Source: Exhibit F. Date: May 2026. Event: First unwanted contact after the order. Source: Exhibit E. Date: June 2026. Event: Continued calls, texts, WhatsApp messages. Source: Exhibit E. Date: 1 to 30 July 2026. Event: Voicemails A and B and further contact. Source: Exhibits A, B, D. Date: 10 Oct 2026. Event: Voicemails exported; consent recorded; this file opened. Source: Exhibits A to C.
HOST: 8. Draft instruments in this file. 
HOST: 1. New York: proposed counts in indictment form, Supreme Court, Bronx County (draft for the District Attorney). 2. New York: Family Offense Petition, Family Court, Bronx County (Form GF-5 content). 3. New Jersey: Citizen complaint-summons, harassment and stalking, Bergen County (CDR-1 content), with a cover letter to the Bergen County Prosecutor's Special Victims Unit. 4. New Jersey: Notice of motion to dissolve the accused's restraining order, Family Part, Bergen County (Carfagno). 5. Federal: Referral letter to the FBI New York Field Office and the United States Attorney, Southern District of New York. 6. Motion for admission pro hac vice of Nathan A. White, Esq. (New York and New Jersey forms). Every instrument is marked DRAFT and carries no docket number. They are filed by counsel, not by the parties, and only after Exhibits D, E and F are in.
HOST: 9. What Ms. Rodriguez supplies, and how. 
HOST: 1. Voicemail details. Phone app → Voicemails → tap each one from him → screenshot the screen showing his number, the date, the time and the length. Then tap Share → Save to Files, and upload the audio too. 2. WhatsApp chat export. Open the chat with him → tap his name at the top → scroll down → Export Chat → Attach Media → Save to Files. Upload the .zip. This carries every message with its date and time, which screenshots alone do not prove. 3. Screenshots of texts (SMS/iMessage) and call log. Screenshot every message from him with the date header visible (in Messages, drag a message to the left to show times). Call log: Phone → Recents → the (i) next to his number → screenshot. 4. The restraining order. Every page of what was served on her, and any hearing notice, as photos or PDF.
HOST: 5. Her own one-page account: when they met, when it ended, when he filed, what he has done since. Dates as exact as she can. 6. From now on: no reply to him, ever. Save everything he sends. Upload it here.
HOST: 10. Caveats. 
HOST: The dates "May 2026" and "1 to 30 July 2026" are from Mr. Johns's notes; the exported voicemail files carry only the 10 October export time. The Phone app list supplies the real dates. The accused's identity as caller rests on voice recognition by two people who know him; the caller number and carrier records make it conclusive. This brief is prepared by Christopher Johns's office for counsel's review. It is not legal advice, and counsel chooses the charges and the forum.

## DRAFT , Proposed counts in indictment form (New York)

HOST: Document two. The proposed counts in indictment form, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx. A reminder: a grand jury votes an indictment on the District Attorney's presentation; this is counsel's proposal to the Bronx DA's Domestic Violence Bureau. 
READER: DRAFT. NOT FILED. No indictment number exists. An indictment is voted by a grand jury on the District Attorney's presentation; this draft is counsel's proposal to the Bronx County District Attorney, Domestic Violence Bureau. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK against FRANK PATRICK D'ANTONIO, Defendant. Indictment No. (none , draft, to be filled in) THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF BRONX, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the following crimes:
READER: COUNT ONE , Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree (Penal Law section 240.30(2)), a class A misdemeanor. The defendant, on or about (date of Exhibit A, to be filled in), in the County of the Bronx, the communication having been received there and being deemed made there (CPL section 20.60(1)), with intent to harass or threaten another person, to wit Marlene Rodriguez, made a telephone call to her telephone number (646) 363-4295, whether or not a conversation ensued, with no purpose of legitimate communication, and left the voice message set out in Exhibit A, including the words "now you gotta go to jail because you broke the no contact order."
READER: COUNT TWO , Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree (Penal Law section 240.30(2)), a class A misdemeanor. The defendant, on or about (date of Exhibit B, to be filled in), in the County of the Bronx, with intent to harass or threaten Marlene Rodriguez, made a telephone call to her telephone, whether or not a conversation ensued, with no purpose of legitimate communication, and left the voice message set out in Exhibit B. COUNTS THREE THROUGH (N, to be filled in) , Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree (Penal Law section 240.30(2)). (One count for each further call, voicemail, SMS or WhatsApp message established by Exhibits D and E, each pleaded with its date., to be filled in)
READER: COUNT (N+1, to be filled in) , Stalking in the Fourth Degree (Penal Law section 120.45(1)), a class B misdemeanor. The defendant, from on or about (first date, May 2026, to be filled in) to on or about (last date, July 2026, to be filled in), in the County of the Bronx, intentionally and for no legitimate purpose engaged in a course of conduct directed at Marlene Rodriguez, consisting of repeated telephone calls, voice messages, text messages and WhatsApp messages of a sexual and threatening character, and knew or reasonably should have known that such conduct was likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to her physical health, safety or property.
READER: COUNT (N+2, to be filled in) , Stalking in the Fourth Degree (Penal Law section 120.45(2)), a class B misdemeanor. (Plead if Exhibit E shows she told him to stop, or he was otherwise clearly informed to cease., to be filled in) The defendant, during the same period, intentionally and for no legitimate purpose engaged in a course of conduct consisting of telephoning and initiating communication with Marlene Rodriguez after having been clearly informed to cease that conduct, which caused material harm to her mental or emotional health. COUNT (N+3, to be filled in) , Harassment in the Second Degree (Penal Law section 240.26(3)), a violation. The defendant, during the same period, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm Marlene Rodriguez, engaged in a course of conduct which alarmed and seriously annoyed her and served no legitimate purpose.
READER: (Reserved: Criminal Contempt in the First Degree (Penal Law section 215.51(b)(iv)), to be pleaded only for contact occurring after an order of protection is issued in Ms. Rodriguez's favor., to be filled in) Foreperson of the Grand Jury District Attorney, Bronx County Draft prepared 10 October 2026 for counsel's review.

## DRAFT , Family Offense Petition (Family Court Act article 8), Family C

HOST: Document three. The family offense petition for the Family Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx, under article eight of the Family Court Act. A temporary order of protection can issue the same day it is filed. 
READER: DRAFT. NOT FILED. No docket number. Filed by the petitioner or counsel at the Bronx Family Court, 900 Sheridan Avenue, Bronx, NY 10451; a temporary order of protection may issue the same day (FCA section 828). FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF BRONX In the Matter of a Family Offense Proceeding MARLENE RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, against FRANK PATRICK D'ANTONIO, Respondent. 1. Petitioner Marlene Rodriguez resides at 1833 Story Avenue, Bronx, New York 10473; born 29 October 1994. 2. Respondent Frank Patrick D'Antonio resides at (address from his restraining-order petition, to be filled in), Franklin Lakes, New Jersey; born 4 April 1992.
READER: 3. Relationship (FCA section 812(1)(e)): Petitioner and Respondent were in an intimate relationship for approximately one year, (month 2025, to be filled in) to (month 2026, to be filled in). They did not reside together. The relationship was of a sexual and dating nature with frequent contact, which satisfies "intimate relationship" without regard to cohabitation or formal status. 4. Family offenses alleged: aggravated harassment in the second degree (PL section 240.30(2)); stalking in the fourth degree (PL section 120.45); harassment in the second degree (PL section 240.26).
READER: 5. Acts. On or about (date, to be filled in), Respondent telephoned Petitioner and left a voice message stating, among other things, "it doesn't take this long to get fucked and make videos of it now you gotta go to jail because you broke the no contact order." On or about (date, to be filled in), Respondent telephoned Petitioner and left a voice message demanding that she call him and "make this good this time," referring to sexual acts. Between May and July 2026 Respondent further (number, to be filled in) times called, texted and messaged Petitioner by WhatsApp as set out in the attached schedule (Exhibit E).
READER: 6. Existing order. Respondent has obtained a restraining order against Petitioner in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, docket FV-02-(blank)-26, dated (blank). Petitioner has complied with it. Respondent's own messages, above, were initiated by him in the face of his own order and demonstrate that the order is being used as an instrument of intimidation. 7. Petitioner fears for her safety and has suffered substantial emotional distress. 8. No prior application for the relief requested here has been made to any court. (Amend if Petitioner has sought relief in New Jersey., to be filled in)
READER: WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Court issue a temporary order of protection forthwith and, after hearing, a final order of protection directing Respondent to stay away from Petitioner, her home at 1833 Story Avenue, her place of employment, and to refrain from any communication with her by any means, including telephone, text, WhatsApp, social media and third parties, for the maximum period permitted (FCA section 842), together with such other relief as the Court deems just. Dated: Bronx, New York, (date, to be filled in) Marlene Rodriguez, Petitioner Verification: (notary block, to be filled in) Attachments: Exhibits A, B (recordings and transcripts), D (voicemail list), E (message schedule), F (Respondent's New Jersey order).

## DRAFT , New Jersey: citizen complaint-summons and letter to the Bergen

HOST: Document four. New Jersey. The citizen complaint-summons for harassment and stalking, and the letter to the Bergen County Prosecutor's Special Victims Unit. 
READER: DRAFT. NOT FILED. No complaint number. A citizen complaint for a petty disorderly persons offense is filed with the Municipal Court for the municipality where the offense occurred (Franklin Lakes Municipal Court, 480 De Korte Drive, Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417) and reviewed for probable cause by a judicial officer (R. 7:2-1, 7:2-2). Indictable offenses (stalking) are referred to the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, Special Victims Unit, Two Bergen County Plaza, Hackensack, NJ 07601.
READER: A. Complaint-Summons (CDR-1 content). 
READER: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, County of Bergen, Franklin Lakes Municipal Court Complainant: Marlene Rodriguez, 1833 Story Avenue, Bronx, NY 10473, (646) 363-4295 Defendant: Frank Patrick D'Antonio, (address, to be filled in), Franklin Lakes, NJ, DOB 04/04/1992 The complainant, by certification, says that to the best of her knowledge, information and belief the named defendant, at Franklin Lakes, Bergen County, on or about the dates below, did: Count 1 , Harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a), on or about (date of Exhibit A, to be filled in), with purpose to harass, make a communication by telephone to the complainant in offensively coarse language and in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm, to wit the voice message set out in Exhibit A. Count 2 , Harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a), on or about (date of Exhibit B, to be filled in), same, the voice message set out in Exhibit B.
READER: Counts 3 to (N, to be filled in) , Harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a), one per further call, text or WhatsApp message in Exhibits D and E. Count (N+1, to be filled in) , Harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c), between May and July 2026, with purpose to harass, engage in a course of alarming conduct and of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy the complainant. Count (N+2, to be filled in) , Stalking, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10(b) (crime of the fourth degree; for referral to the County Prosecutor), between May and July 2026, purposefully and knowingly engage in a course of conduct directed at the complainant that would cause a reasonable person to fear for her safety or to suffer other emotional distress. (Plead section 2C:12-10(c), third degree, only if a court order prohibited his conduct., to be filled in)
READER: Certification: I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
READER: B. Letter to the Bergen County Prosecutor, Special Victims Unit. 
READER: (Letterhead of counsel, to be filled in) (Date, to be filled in) Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, Special Victims Unit Two Bergen County Plaza, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Re: Marlene Rodriguez , harassment and stalking by Frank Patrick D'Antonio of Franklin Lakes Dear Prosecutor, I represent Marlene Rodriguez of the Bronx, New York. Between May and July 2026 Frank Patrick D'Antonio (DOB 4 April 1992, Franklin Lakes) repeatedly called, left voicemails for, texted and messaged Ms. Rodriguez from New Jersey. Two of the voicemails are enclosed with transcripts; in one he demands sexual acts, in the other he threatens her with jail under a restraining order that he himself obtained against her in the Bergen County Family Part (docket FV-02-(blank)-26). Ms. Rodriguez has not responded to him.
READER: The enclosed material supports harassment (2C:33-4) and stalking (2C:12-10(b)). The same conduct is being reported to the Bronx County District Attorney, and we will seek dissolution of Mr. D'Antonio's restraining order in the Family Part on the strength of these messages. We ask that your office review the matter for charging, obtain the carrier records for both numbers, and advise whether you prefer the harassment counts to proceed by citizen complaint in Franklin Lakes Municipal Court. Enclosures: Exhibits A to F; draft complaint; timeline. Respectfully, Nathan A. White, Esq. (pro hac vice admission pending), with (local counsel, to be filled in)

## DRAFT , Notice of motion to dissolve or modify the restraining order h

HOST: Document five. The notice of motion to dissolve or modify the restraining order that Mr. D'Antonio holds against Ms. Rodriguez, in the Family Part, Bergen County. 
READER: DRAFT. NOT FILED. Filed in the matter already pending: Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, docket FV-02-(from the served papers, to be filled in)-26. If the order is still temporary, this material is instead the defense presented at the final-restraining-order hearing. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, CHANCERY DIVISION, FAMILY PART, BERGEN COUNTY FRANK PATRICK D'ANTONIO, Plaintiff, v. MARLENE RODRIGUEZ, Defendant. Docket No. FV-02-(blank)-26 NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISSOLVE THE FINAL RESTRAINING ORDER (N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(d)) OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO MODIFY IT TO: Plaintiff (and counsel of record, to be filled in)
READER: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on (date, to be filled in), Defendant Marlene Rodriguez, through counsel, will move before the Family Part, Bergen County Justice Center, 10 Main Street, Hackensack, for an order dissolving the final restraining order entered on (date, to be filled in), or in the alternative modifying it, on the grounds set out in the accompanying certification and brief. Grounds (Carfagno v. Carfagno, 288 N.J. Super. 424 (Ch. Div. 1995)): 1. Plaintiff does not fear Defendant. Between May and July 2026 Plaintiff himself repeatedly telephoned Defendant, left her voice messages demanding sexual acts (Exhibit B) and threatening her with jail (Exhibit A), and sent her text and WhatsApp messages (Exhibits D, E). A plaintiff who seeks out the defendant for sex, and uses the order as a lever, has no objective fear of her.
READER: 2. Changed circumstances and good cause. The order has been turned from a shield into an instrument of harassment and intimidation; the conduct it was meant to prevent, if any, is not occurring, while the Plaintiff's own conduct is the subject of criminal complaints in two states. 3. Defendant's compliance and good faith. Defendant has not contacted Plaintiff and has not been charged with contempt. (Confirm from Ms. Rodriguez and her side of the record., to be filled in) 4. Nature of the current relationship. None, by Defendant's choice; the only contact is initiated by Plaintiff. 5. Other factors: no contempt convictions; Defendant has no history of violence; dissolution would end the mechanism by which Plaintiff threatens her.
READER: Defendant relies on the certification of Marlene Rodriguez, the recordings and transcripts (Exhibits A and B), the voicemail records (Exhibit D), the message record (Exhibit E), and the brief submitted herewith. Oral argument is requested. (Proposed form of order attached., to be filled in) (Local counsel of record, to be filled in), for Defendant Nathan A. White, Esq., pro hac vice admission pending Note to counsel: Rule 5:7A and the Domestic Violence Procedures Manual govern; a motion to dissolve by the defendant requires a prima facie showing of changed circumstances before the court orders a plenary hearing (Kanaszka v. Kunen, 313 N.J. Super. 600 (App. Div. 1998)). Exhibits A and B make that showing on their own.

## DRAFT , Referral to the FBI and the United States Attorney, Southern D

HOST: Document six. The federal referral to the F B I New York Field Office and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. 
READER: DRAFT. NOT SENT. Sent by counsel once Exhibits D and E are complete; a federal referral is taken seriously when the course of conduct is documented end to end. (Letterhead of counsel, to be filled in) (Date, to be filled in) Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278 United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, Violent and Organized Crime Unit / Civil Rights Unit, One St. Andrew's Plaza, New York, NY 10007 Re: Interstate harassment and cyberstalking of Marlene Rodriguez (Bronx, NY) by Frank Patrick D'Antonio (Franklin Lakes, NJ) , 47 U.S.C. section 223; 18 U.S.C. section 2261A(2)(B)
READER: Between May and July 2026 Mr. D'Antonio, from New Jersey, directed to Ms. Rodriguez in the Bronx (number, to be filled in) telephone calls, (number, to be filled in) voicemails, (number, to be filled in) SMS messages and (number, to be filled in) WhatsApp messages, two of which are enclosed as recordings: one demanding sexual acts, one threatening her with jail under a restraining order he obtained against her. The communications crossed state lines by telephone network and by WhatsApp, a facility of interstate commerce, and were made with intent to harass and intimidate, causing substantial emotional distress.
READER: Venue lies in this District under 18 U.S.C. section 3237(a) because the communications were received in Bronx County; the District of New Jersey is an alternative venue. State complaints are pending or being filed with the Bronx County District Attorney and the Bergen County Prosecutor; we are informing both of this referral. Enclosed: the recordings and transcripts with SHA-256 hashes, the voicemail records with caller number and timestamps, the WhatsApp chat export, the SMS and call-log screenshots, the New Jersey restraining order, a timeline, and Ms. Rodriguez's statement. We request that the Bureau obtain the carrier and WhatsApp records by legal process and evaluate the matter for prosecution. Respectfully, Nathan A. White, Esq.

## DRAFT , Admission pro hac vice of Nathan A. White, Esq.

HOST: Document seven. The admission pro hac vice of Nathan A. White, Esquire, in both states. 
READER: Nathan A. White, Esq., Oakland County, Michigan, is proposed counsel for Marlene Rodriguez. He is not admitted in New York or New Jersey; in each court he appears pro hac vice, associated with a locally admitted attorney who signs the papers and is responsible to the court.
READER: New York (22 NYCRR section 520.11; Uniform Rules section 202.? as applicable; Family Court Act section 262 does not apply). 
READER: Motion on notice in the court where the matter is pending (Bronx Family Court for the family offense petition; the criminal matters are prosecuted by the District Attorney, so no appearance is needed there beyond victim's counsel). Affidavit of Mr. White: Michigan bar number, good standing, no discipline, no prior pro hac vice admissions in New York in the last two years (or list), familiarity with New York rules. Certificate of good standing from the State Bar of Michigan (within 90 days). Affirmation of New York counsel of record agreeing to be associated. Proposed order.
READER: New Jersey (R. 1:21-2). 
READER: Motion in the Family Part, Bergen County, in docket FV-02-(blank)-26 (and any criminal matter in which the victim's counsel appears). Certification of Mr. White (R. 1:21-2(b)): bar admissions, good standing, no discipline, prior New Jersey pro hac vice appearances, consent to the jurisdiction of the New Jersey courts and disciplinary system, association with New Jersey counsel. Certification of New Jersey counsel of record. Annual fee to the New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection and the Disciplinary Oversight Committee, and registration with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, upon admission (R. 1:21-2(b)(2)-(3)). Proposed order. (Forms to be completed with Mr. White's bar details., to be filled in)

## Close

HOST: That is the whole file as it stands on the tenth of October, twenty twenty-six. What turns these drafts into filings is in Ms. Rodriguez's hands: the voicemail list with the caller's number and the dates, the WhatsApp export, the text and call screenshots, every page of the order, and her own account. The upload page on the case site takes all of it from a phone. Proposed counsel, Nathan A. White, Esquire, pro hac vice. Prepared for Marlene Rodriguez. End of reading.