The Law Offices of

EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

Attorney ID No. 024161997
Edward Harrington Heyburn, Esq.
7 Poplar Run
East Windsor, New Jersey 08520
Tel. (609) 240-5578
Fax (609) 228-5115
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

STEVEN WRONKO and

COLLENE WRONKO, (Husband and
Wife),

LAW DIVISION
MIDDLESEX COUNTY

Plaintiffs,
vs.

DOCKET NO: __________________

NANCY MARTIN, (Individually and

in her official capacity as the

Mayor of Helmetta); BOROUGH OF
HELMETTA, HELMETTA POLICE
DEPARTMENT, ROBERT MANNEY,
(Individually and in his
official capacity as the Police
Director of Helmetta), RICHARD
RECINE, (Individually and in
his official capacity as the
Special Police Officer of
Helmetta Police Department);
CHAD LOCKMAN (Individually and
in his official capacity as the
Special Police Officer of
Helmetta Police Department);
HAROLD MESSLER, (Individually
and in his official capacity as
the Special Police Officer of
Helmetta Police Department)
GENE SCHEICHER, (Individually
and in his official capacity as
the Special Police Officer of
Helmetta Police Department);
DEVON GANNON, (Individually and
in his official capacity as the
Special Police Officer of
Helmetta Police Department);
MICHAEL BALTAZAR, (Individually
and in his official capacity as

CIVIL ACTION
COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(1)


the Special Police Officer of
Helmetta Police Department);
MICHAEL RZIGALINSKI,
(Individually and in his
official capacity as the
Special Police Officer of
Helmetta Police Department);
KYLE WORSTER, (Individually and
in his official capacity as the
Special Police Officer of
Helmetta Police Department)
SEAN SIGNORELLO, (Individually
and in his official capacity as
the Special Police Officer of
Helmetta Police Department);
BRANDON METZ,(Individually and
in his official capacity as
Animal Control Officer for
Helmetta Regional Animal
Shelter); MICHAEL METZ,
(Individually and in his
capacity as agent); MICHAL
CIELESZ, (Individually and in
his official capacity as
Director of the Helmetta
Regional Animal Shelter)
RICHARD CIELESZ, (Individually
and in his official capacity as
Assistant Director of the
Helmetta Regional Animal
Shelter), HELMETTA REGIONAL
ANIMAL SHELTER, N.J.S.P.C.A.,
NEW JERSEY STATE HUMANE POLICE
and FRANK RIZZO, (Individually
and in his official capacity as
the Chief Law Enforcement
Officer for the New Jersey
Humane Police/N.J.S.P.C.A.),
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO, (Husband

and

Wife)

by

their

undersigned

attorney,

Edward

Heyburn, Esq. allege as follows:

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(2)

Harrington


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 individually 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 individually 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

Police Officer of Helmetta Police Department;

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(3)


9.

Defendant, GENE SCHEICHER, (is a New Jersey resident

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

Police Officer of Helmetta Police Department;
10.

Defendant, DEVON GANNON, is a New Jersey resident and

is being sued individually and in his official capacity as a

Police Officer of Helmetta Police Department;
11.

Defendant, MICHAEL BALTAZAR, is a New Jersey resident

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

Police Officer of Helmetta Police Department;
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

is being sued individually and in his official capacity as a

Police Officer of Helmetta Police Department;
14.

Defendant, SEAN SIGNORELLO, is a New Jersey resident

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

Police Officer of Helmetta Police Department;
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;

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(4)


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;

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(5)


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;

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(6)


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

METZs 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 Jerseys 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;

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(7)


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 WRONKOs 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;

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(8)


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 MARTINs 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:

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(9)


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

mayors 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;

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(10)


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 WRONKO1 to demonstrate
probable cause by showing their videotapes;

Steven and Collene Wronko filed complaints against Michael Metz in Helmetta
Municipal Court which was transferred with the cases against the Wronkos to
North Brunswick Municipal Court where Judge Christine Heitmann and Judge
William Feingold sit.

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(11)


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;

Defendant, Nancy Martin was a complainant in one of the summonses against

Steven Wronko that was before Judge Heitmann. Judge Heitmann dismissed all
charges against Defendant, Michael Metz who is the son of Nancy Martin.

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(12)


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

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(13)


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 Martins 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 WRONKOs 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;

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(14)


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;

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(15)


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;
74.

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

POLICE removed/deleted Plaintiffs comments as well as other

posts critical of these defendants from the NJ SPCA Group;
75.

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

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 Jerseys 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

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(16)


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;

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(17)


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 of
grievances)
82.

Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO

incorporate the aforementioned paragraphs herein as if set forth

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;
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;
c. Statutory Damages;

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(18)


d. Attorney Fees;
e. Costs and interest.

COUNT III
(Violation of Plaintiffs Right to Due Process)
84.

Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO

incorporate the aforementioned paragraphs herein as if set forth

at length;
85.

The actions of all Defendants violated the Plaintiffs

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;
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;
c. Statutory Damages;
d. Attorney Fees;
e. Costs and interest.

COUNT IV

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(19)


(Violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act,
N.J.S.A. 10:6-1, et seq.)
86.

Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO

incorporate the aforementioned paragraphs herein as if set forth

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 WRONKOs 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;
88.

The actions of all Defendants violated the Plaintiffs

rights pursuant to the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (N.J.A.C. 10:51, et seq.) and the N.J. Const. art. I;
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;
c. Statutory Damages;
d. Attorney Fees;
e. Costs and interest.

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(20)

COUNT V
(Failure to Train, Supervise or Discipline)
89.

Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO

incorporate the aforementioned paragraphs herein as if set forth

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

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(21)


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 citizens 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;
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO
request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against
the SUPERVISING DEFENDANTS, jointly and severally, and award
Plaintiffs:
a. Compensatory Damages;
b. Punitive Damages;
c. Statutory Damages;
d. Attorney Fees;
e. Costs and interest.

COUNT VI

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(22)


(Unconstitutional Policymaking)
98.

Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO

incorporate the aforementioned paragraphs herein as if set forth

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;
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO
request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against
Defendants, NANCY MARTIN and ROBERT MANNEY, jointly and severally,
and award Plaintiffs:
a. Compensatory Damages;
b. Punitive Damages;
c. Statutory Damages;

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(23)


d. Attorney Fees;
e. Costs and interest.

COUNT VII
(Invasion of privacy/False light)
103. Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO
incorporate the aforementioned paragraphs herein as if set forth
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 defendants actions, Plaintiffs have
been embarrassed, humiliated and subject to public scorn and as
such have suffered damages;
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO
request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against
Defendant, NANCY MARTIN, and award Plaintiffs:
a. Compensatory Damages;
b. Punitive Damages;
c. Statutory Damages;
d. Attorney Fees;
e. Costs and interest.

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(24)

COUNT VIII
(Civil Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights)
106. Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO
incorporate the aforementioned paragraphs herein as if set forth
at length;
107. Defendant, NANCY MARTIN conspired with Defendant,
MICHAEL METZ to violate Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE
WRONKOs 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;
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO
request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(25)


Defendants, NANCY MARTIN, MICHAEL METZ, ROBERT MANNEY and HELMETTA
POLICE DEPARTMENT and award Plaintiffs:
a. Compensatory Damages;
b. Punitive Damages;
c. Statutory Damages;
d. Attorney Fees;
e. Costs and interest.

COUNT IX
(Invasion of privacy/False light)
109. Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO
incorporate the aforementioned paragraphs herein as if set forth
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 defendants actions, Plaintiffs have
been embarrassed, humiliated and subject to public scorn and as
such have suffered damages;
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, STEVEN WRONKO and COLLENE WRONKO
request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against
Defendant, FRANK RIZZO, and award Plaintiffs:
a. Compensatory Damages;
b. Punitive Damages;

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(26)


c. Statutory Damages;
d. Attorney Fees;
e. Costs and interest.

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

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(27)


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

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
A. If YES

Parties contemplated to be joined, in

other Causes of Action.

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

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

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(28)


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

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ.

(29)