Rodriguez v. D'Antonio — Legal brief and case file

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 § 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).

1. Parties

2. Statement of facts (as presently known)

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.
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.

3. Jurisdiction and venue

New York. A statement made by telephone from one jurisdiction to a person in another is deemed made in both (CPL § 20.60(1)). New York has jurisdiction because the result element, receipt by the victim, occurred here (CPL § 20.20(2)(b)); venue lies in Bronx County (CPL § 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.

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.

Federal. Interstate telephone calls and texts fall under 47 U.S.C. § 223; a course of conduct over a facility of interstate commerce (telephone, SMS, WhatsApp) falls under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2). Venue for a continuing offense lies in any district where it began, continued or was completed (18 U.S.C. § 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. § 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.

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–July record is assembled.

4. Offenses, with elements

New York

• Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree, Penal Law § 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 § 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. § 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.
• Harassment in the Second Degree, Penal Law § 240.26(3) (violation): course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys and serves no legitimate purpose.
• Criminal Contempt, Penal Law §§ 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: § 215.51(b)(iv) (telephoning in violation of an order of protection with intent to harass) is a class E felony.

New Jersey

• 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. § 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.

Federal

• 47 U.S.C. § 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. § 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. § 2262: only if the accused crossed state lines, or caused the victim to, in violation of a protection order. Not presently indicated.

5. The accused's restraining order against Ms. Rodriguez

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.
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.
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 § 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).

6. Evidence

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.

7. Timeline

8. Draft instruments in this file

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.

9. What Ms. Rodriguez supplies, and how

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.
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.

10. Caveats

• The dates "May 2026" and "1–30 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.