Dates are listed in order. Case and docket numbers are included where they exist. Linked titles go to my full account of that day.
2025
June 2. I ended the relationship and flew home from Atlanta.
June 3. He threatened me, including that he had already contacted child protective services and the state police.
June 4. I went to the Parsippany-Troy Hills Police Department to report his threats (report 25-036281). I asked for a restraining order and told them about a revolver he had brought into my home. I was told I would never get one. The same day, he obtained a temporary restraining order against me through the Denville Police Department (FV-14-001263-25), with a warrant to search my home for that revolver. June 4 – One Year Later
June 5. His TRO was served on me, and Parsippany police took the revolver (report 25-036435).
June 7. My home security system kept being accessed after I had changed the credentials. Police took a report (25-036872) and told me it was not a violation. June 7 – When Security Becomes Dangerous · Not a Violation…
June 25. A friend watched him put me in his car outside a hotel in Parsippany. June 25 2025; more to come
June 26. Mount Arlington police responded to the hotel where I was (Case 2025-05547). Based on what he told them about my mental health, I was taken to St. Clare’s for evaluation. When officers had him search his bags, my driver’s license was in his trunk. The hospital psychiatrist found no psychosis or mania and cleared me. That evening, Denville police served me at the hospital with a second TRO he had filed (FV-14-001345-25). I had direct, easily obtained evidence and an eyewitness that contradicted his accusations. No one has reviewed that evidence or interviewed my witnesses.
July 4. I escaped.
July 7. I reported the theft of my phones and laptop to the Parsippany-Troy Hills Police Department (report 25-042689).
July 8. His second TRO was dismissed at his request. He had already withdrawn the first.
July 14. The State moved for forfeiture of the seized revolver (FO-14-000042-26).
July 16. I filed an internal affairs complaint with the Parsippany-Troy Hills Police Department.
July 17–18. Parsippany produced six redacted police reports in response to my records request. The next day I wrote back that the reports contained inaccuracies the body-worn camera footage would confirm.
August 15. I received a threatening message from a man who referred to him by name. Police documented it as harassment (report 25-050099).
August 20. My own restraining-order case against him (FV-14-000051-26) ended in a consent agreement. My lawyer heavily discouraged me from pursuing a final restraining order, and let me believe the consent agreement I signed was a consent order. It was not.
2025. I filed a complaint with the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners (MED-2025-08141).
December 4. I asked the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, in writing, to open an internal affairs review of the police response and a criminal review of the conduct I had reported.
December 30. MCPO Internal Affairs interviewed me in person (PSU-25-0214). I was promised a findings letter.
2026
January 21. The Internal Affairs detective confirmed in writing that a findings letter would follow, and that my allegations against the physician had been forwarded to the MCPO Sex Crimes Unit. This was the unit’s last communication to me before it closed the file.
January 28. I met in person with detectives from the MCPO Sex Crimes Unit.
February 4. I gave the Sex Crimes Unit account details, phone numbers, the stolen iPhone’s IMEI, and the names of witnesses.
February 17. A detective wrote back: “There is no rush.”
May 22. I was told the case was “open and active.” I asked whether any subpoenas or preservation letters had been sent. No answer.
May 25. I delivered a complete, indexed evidence set to the Sex Crimes Unit. The next day the unit called it “helpful.” That is the last substantive reply I have received from it.
June 20. I wrote to the Parsippany-Troy Hills Police Department asking it to correct material inaccuracies in its reports, add a supplemental report, and review its reports against body-worn camera footage. No answer.
July 21. A Parsippany officer drafted a subpoena for Apple IMEI records on my stolen phone and sent it to the Prosecutor’s Office for review. The first investigative step since the theft report, 379 days earlier. Bone to Pick
August 15. The officer told me by phone that the Prosecutor’s Office had not approved the subpoena and intended to close the matter. I confirmed that in writing the same day; his reply did not dispute it. The same day, I filed an internal affairs complaint with Parsippany against the officer who, on June 4, 2025, told me I would never get a restraining order.
August 22. I asked the New Jersey Attorney General for an independent review.
September 1. After the officer went back with his supervisor, a narrower subpoena, for Verizon records, was approved.
September 16. The officer’s signature block changed from “Investigative Branch” to “Patrol Branch.”
October 7. I sent three requests in one morning: a formal status request to Internal Affairs, a follow-up to the Attorney General, and a new request to the Attorney General’s Prosecutors Supervision Unit. 490 Days
October 9. Parsippany received the Verizon records. The officer who had pursued the subpoena wrote that he had been transferred out of the Investigative Branch; the case was reassigned to another detective.
October 13. The Prosecutor’s Office closed its internal affairs file (PSU-25-0214) by letter: two sentences, no findings, 287 days after my one interview. 499 Days
October 20. The Parsippany-Troy Hills Police Department’s own Internal Affairs Group completed its investigation of my complaint against the officer (IA-2026-0064). Letter signed by Det. Daniel Maio #500: “The investigation revealed that the officer violated departmental rules and regulations. The officer will be subject to appropriate discipline under our agency’s procedures.” Seven days after the county found every action consistent with the rules. (EX-001)
October 21. I asked the Internal Affairs detective by email whether the finding covered one incident or both. His reply, the same day: “Your allegations from both incidents (6/4/25 and 8/10/26) were thoroughly investigated and the officer was found to have violated department rules and regulations during both incidents.” The finding stands for June 4, 2025. Eight days earlier, the county had closed a review that included that day: “consistent with department rules and regulations.” (EX-001a)
