By Richard Luthmann with Dick LaFontaine and Rick LaRivière
In a recent episode of The Unknown Podcast, hosts Michael Volpe and Richard Luthmann delved into the contentious divorce case of Lori and John Grossi, a high-stakes legal battle in Monmouth County, New Jersey. The case was first broke here on This Is For Real with Dick LaFontaine and Rick LaRivière.
Dubbed the "Botox Bruise Silver Bullet" case, the discussion focused on false abuse allegations, tax fraud, and the questionable role of Lori's attorney, Steven P. Monaghan.
This case, currently before Judge Albert Rescinio, has drawn parallels to high-profile cases like that of Teresa Giudice from The Real Housewives of New Jersey.
Luthmann described the case as a classic example of the "Silver Bullet" strategy—a term for false domestic violence claims often used in divorce proceedings to gain an unfair advantage in custody and asset battles.
According to John Grossi, his estranged wife Lori accused him of physically assaulting her, pointing to a bruise near her eye as evidence. However, John insists the bruise came from a Botox injection, not an act of violence.
“I never laid a hand on her,” John claims, calling the accusation a blatant lie orchestrated by Lori and her lawyer.
Video actually shows “Botox Bruise” Lori as the aggressor who put her hands on John.
During the podcast, Volpe and Luthmann dissected how Lori secured a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) based solely on her word, a legal maneuver that has prevented John from seeing his children for over six months.
Volpe, who has extensively covered the misuse of protective orders in contentious divorces, explained that TROs are easier to obtain than criminal charges due to the lower burden of proof.
"It’s a great way to get someone effectively charged with a crime without the protections of being a criminal defendant," Volpe remarked.
Luthmann expanded on the story, highlighting how Botox Bruise Lori’s attorney allegedly coached her on how to execute the "Silver Bullet" strategy.
Monaghan, a respected Red Bank divorce attorney with nearly 30 years of experience, has refused to answer any questions from reporters about his role in the case, raising further suspicions about his involvement.
"He should know better," John has said, accusing Monaghan of not only representing his ex-wife, but actively aiding her in committing fraud on the Court through the knowing submission of dishonest documents.
The conversation also shifted to her alleged financial misconduct. According to John and several unnamed sources, Botox Bruise Lori has been hiding income from her child therapy business, Sensory Playground Pediatric Therapy Center, while living a lavish lifestyle. Luthmann emphasized that Lori’s reported income of just $58,000 is grossly inconsistent with her standard of living (more on this below).
"This looks like a case of tax fraud that could lead to serious consequences, similar to Teresa Giudice’s situation," Luthmann added.
The podcast revealed that John is seeking innocent spouse relief from the IRS to shield himself from any liability for his future ex-wife’s alleged tax evasion. A former federal prosecutor consulted by Luthmann suggested that Botox Bruise Lori could face federal prosecution if her financial misconduct is proven.
As the discussion continued, the hosts touched on the broader implications of the case, particularly the issue of parental alienation. John Grossi has been barred from seeing his children for 185 days, and he believes his wife has manipulated the kids against him. Volpe and Luthmann discussed how such alienation tactics, combined with legal maneuvering, can destroy family relationships.
While this drawn-out legal battle shows no signs of resolution, an immediate court hearing is scheduled because of media coverage by this outlet and others. Attorney Monaghan, a seasoned family law attorney with nearly three decades of experience, filed an Order to Show Cause. He seeks to effectively “gag” the Grossi Case, asking the Court to Order numerous First Amendment violations:
That Defendant is prohibited from posting disparaging and harassing information about Plaintiff and/or her business, Sensory Playground, online, including social media, i.e. TikTok, lnstagram, Snapchat, Facebook, Linkedln, etc., and/or other media outlets.
That Defendant is prohibited from paying, arranging, participating with and/or causing any third party to post information about Plaintiff and/or her business, Sensory Playground, online, including social media, i.e. TikTok, lnstagram, Snapchat, Facebook, Linkedln, etc., and/or other media outlets.
That Defendant is prohibited from sharing disparaging and harassing information about Plaintiff and/or her business, Sensory Playground, with third parties.
That Defendant immediately remove, or direct third parties to remove, any and all posts, articles, videos, etc. online, including from social media, i.e. TikTok, lnstagram, Snapchat, Facebook, Linkedln, etc., and/or other media outlets containing disparaging and harassing information about the Plaintiff and/or her
business, Sensory Playground.
That Defendant shall be sanctioned $1 ,000.00 for each time he fails to abide by the provisions of this order.
That Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff's counsel fees … directly to the Law Offices of Steven P. Monaghan, LLC within seven (7) days.
Attorney Monaghan must have been sleeping when they taught the First Amendment in law school. His requests are so wrong in so many ways.
Botox Bruise Lori asks for a prohibition on “disparaging and harassing information.” The problem is no court can prohibit a person from speaking the truth, no matter how disparaging or harassing a person may feel it is.
We don’t need UCLA Law School Professor Emeritus Eugene Volokh to give the wayward a primer.
Courts cannot prohibit individuals from making true statements, as such statements are protected under the First Amendment and the New Jersey Constitution, Article 1 Paragraph 6:
6. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
New Jersey law upholds the right to speak the truth and allows for allegations made upon information and belief, provided they are made in good faith and with a reasonable basis. Senna v. Florimont, 196 N.J. 469, 958 A.2d 427 (2008); G.D. v. Kenny, 411 N.J. Super. 176, 984 A.2d 921 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009).
The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 2689, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (plurality); Mitchell v. Cuomo, 748 F.2d 804, 806 (2d Cir.1984); New Alliance Party v. Dinkins, 743 F.Supp. 1055, 1063 (S.D.N.Y.1990). Such injury may arise where free speech is "either threatened or in fact being impaired at the time the relief [is] sought." Elrod, 427 U.S. at 373, 96 S.Ct. at 2690
Botox Bruise Lori asks injunctive relief, an extraordinary remedy in New Jersey. To justify its award, plaintiffs must demonstrate a well-settled legal right, the deprivation of which will cause real and substantial harm. Crowe v. De Gioia, 90 N.J. 126, 132, 447 A.2d 173 (1982). They must also show that, as evidenced by the lack of a substantial dispute concerning the material facts necessary to establish their case, plaintiffs have a reasonable probability of succeeding on the merits of their claim and that the balance of relative hardships tips decidedly in their way.
In the Grossi divorce, the facts are far from undisputed. If Monaghan can walk out of the New Jersey courthouse with a preliminary restraint on speech, it will reminiscent of a 2015 NJ case in Bergen County before Judge Gallina-Mecca.
There, Judge Gallina-Mecca ordered a Bergen County newspaper to take down article. As Professor Volokh wrote in the Washington Post:
Fortunately, the judge promptly backed down and vacated the order after the newspaper challenged it in federal court, but it’s noteworthy that the judge (Bergen County, N.J., Superior Court Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca) issued it in the first place."
Mike Volpe didn’t back down. He went right after Attorney Monaghan, asking him the tough questions and calling “Botox Bruise” Lori a “drama queen” and saying “her affidavit in support of your injunction seems to validate the conclusion she's a liar”:
From: Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 1, 2024, 9:12 PM
Subject: Story follow up on potential injunction of John Grossi
To: office@newjerseydivorce.net <office@newjerseydivorce.net>Mr. Monaghan,
My name is Michael Volpe. I'm an investigative journalist and I own this site, michaelvolpe.substack.com
I hosted the show with Rick Luthmann which you referenced in a recent injunction you hope to get.
This injunction seems to blatantly violate Mr. Grossi's first amendment rights and your client claims she was harassed after a friend sent her the video.
Your client appears to be a drama queen and her affidavit in support of your injunction seems to validate the conclusion she's a liar.
What do you think? Particularly, what is your thought on the first amendment?
In the filed court affidavit, a document sworn under the penalties of perjury, Botox Bruise Lori the Drama Queen states:
The video states that John claims the bruises I received are not actually from any abuse. The video calls this my "silver bullet strategy," and claims my domestic violence claims to be falsified so as to win custody. The video then claims I am hiding income from my business and "cooking the books." The video next claims my lawyer for this divorce action is "part of the scheme" and that he is helping me "cover up and continue my fraud." The video claims John has been cut off from our children for six (6) months due to my "Iies and manipulative tactics." The article features a photograph of the Honorable Kerry E. Higgins, J.S.C., and describes how she has been "hoodwinked." Throughout the videos pictures of me and my bruises are shown, pictures of my house and business are shown, pictures of my divorce lawyer are shown, and even pictures our John with our daughters are shown.
Notice that Botox Bruise Lori the Drama Queen never denies any of these claims. She doesn’t say what John says is false. She doesn’t say New Jersey Judge Kerry E. Higgins isn’t getting hoodwinked. And how can she?
She shows $58,000 in annual income and carries a multi-million dollar Manalapan home. According to John, there are checks paid DIRECTLY from her business to pay off the mortgage. (more on this below)
Botox Bruise Lori the Drama Queen then proceeds to make three specific statements in the affidavit sworn under penalties of perjury that are demonstrably false.
There are several articles posted with information defaming me, my business, and my lawyer. The first is titled "Sensory Playground Founder Accused of Financial Misconduct in Divorce Case." First, there is obviously no journalistic interest that would warrant press coverage. It merely restates John's allegations about me in a lurid fashion. It identifies me as the "Sensory Playground" founder so it hurts my business. It falsely accuses me of fabricating domestic violence, and keeping John from our children, which is totally false. It is devoid of any facts. It is just John defaming me, under the guise of being an "article."
Botox Bruise Lori the Drama Queen fails to recognize that her payments and comingling of assets from her business to pay the mortgage on the home gives the story “journalistic interest.” If she is using her business as a “piggy bank” and committing dishonesty and tax fraud, both the business and she are fair game for “journalistic interest.” Additionally, the video above shows Botox Bruise Lori the Drama Queen putting her hands on John. She also fails to mention her relevant police interaction from years before or her run-in with Manalapan Animal Control.
Attached … is an article attacking my lawyer, titled "Attorneys' Role in Divorce Scheme Sparks Ethical Concerns." There is no scheme. There is no ethical concerns, other than the allegations John makes. It is devoid of any facts. It is a posting John defaming my lawyer, under the guise of being an "article."
In reality, there are serious ethical concerns and they were raised with Steven Monaghan, who chose to provide no comment:
Silver Bullet Allegations
John Grossi claims that you coached Lori to make false domestic violence accusations against him as part of a “Silver Bullet” strategy. How do you respond to these claims?
Have you ever advised Lori on how to secure a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) based solely on her word without corroborating evidence?
How do you ensure that your clients do not misuse legal instruments like TROs for personal gain in custody battles?
Did you review any medical evidence regarding Lori’s alleged bruises before advising her to report domestic violence?
Have you ever encountered a case where domestic violence claims were fabricated for leverage in a divorce? How did you handle it?
Ethical Concerns and Attorney Conduct
How do you respond to the accusations that you are not merely representing Lori but are actively aiding her in committing fraud?
John Grossi has accused you of crossing ethical lines in your representation. What steps have you taken to ensure that your actions in this case are within the boundaries of the law and the attorney code of conduct?
Have you ever faced complaints or disciplinary action for unethical practices in family law cases?
What are your ethical responsibilities as an attorney when a client is suspected of engaging in illegal activities like tax fraud?
Have you ever found yourself in a position where you had to withdraw from a case due to a client’s fraudulent behavior? How do you balance advocacy with legal ethics?
Tax Fraud Allegations
John Grossi has accused Lori of underreporting her income from Sensory Playground and committing tax fraud. Did you advise Lori on any financial reporting for her business during this case?
Were you aware of any discrepancies between Lori’s reported income and her actual financial situation, as suggested by John Grossi?
Did you conduct any due diligence to verify Lori’s financial statements or tax filings before submitting them to the court as part of the divorce proceedings?
Did you counsel Lori regarding her obligation to disclose all financial assets and income fully during the divorce proceedings?
How do you typically advise clients on disclosing their financial information in family court, particularly in cases involving high-value assets or complex business holdings?
Aiding and Abetting Allegations
How do you respond to John Grossi’s claim that you have been aiding and abetting Lori in concealing her true income and engaging in tax fraud?
Have you ever advised Lori on how to hide or misrepresent her income or assets to avoid scrutiny from the court or tax authorities?
Were you involved in any decisions related to financial reporting for Sensory Playground that may have been used to reduce Lori’s reported income?
Have you ever been accused of aiding a client in illegal or fraudulent activities in prior cases? If so, how were those accusations resolved?
What safeguards do you have in place to ensure that you are not complicit in any fraudulent activities your client may be engaged in?
Finally, Botox Bruise Lori the Drama Queen’s next paragraph tears down all the rest.
The video and articles were posted by an "independent journalist" who is a disbarred attorney, who, according to the New York Post, went to jail for wire fraud conspiracy and extortion conspiracy, and it has been reported he has been involved in for allegedly creating fake profiles and accounts, particularly on Facebook.
It is true that Richard Luthmann is an independent journalist for this outlet. And it is true that he used to be a lawyer. But he was not just any lawyer. He was BOTOX BRUISE LORI THE DRAMA QUEEN’s lawyer. Luthmann represented her and her interests in a foreclosure case in Staten Island in 2015.
Obviously, had Botox Bruise Lori the Drama Queen told Steven Monaghan about Luthmann’s prior representation of her, it probably would have found its way into her affidavit. It seems to be germane information.
If Botox Bruise Lori the Drama Queen withheld that information from Attorney Steven Monaghan, what else is she withholding? That’s a valid question. Is Monaghan being used, wittingly or unwittingly, as her stooge? And if Monaghan doesn’t have the full picture about and the full facts on his client, isn’t a fair assumption to believe he may be an unwitting accomplice or aider and abettor to Botox Bruise Lori the Drama Queen’s schemes and dishonesty?
The verdict is that Botox Bruise Lori Grossi the Drama Queen is suspect. Maybe her lawyer is clean, maybe he’s not. But irrespective, the optics are that Steven Monaghan potentially has a dishonest and maybe dangerous narcissist, psychopath, and criminal client. And if so, how has the respected lawyer kept clear the bright line between zealous representation and criminal facilitation.
The result Botox Bruise Lori Grossi the Drama Queen’s Order to Show Cause will only be laughter or crying. If the law is followed, Steve Monihan gets laughed out of Court. If a contract is to be had, Lady Justice will shed a tear.
Stay tuned.
Share this post