Score:   1
Docket Number:   WD-NY  6:20-cr-06074
Case Name:   USA v. Loria
  Press Releases:
CONTACT: Barbara Burns

PHONE: (716) 843-5817

FAX #: (716) 551-3051

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - U.S. Attorney James P. Kennedy, Jr. announced today that Theodore Loria, 53, of Irondequoit, NY, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford to cyberstalking. The charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and $250,000 fine. 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Melissa M. Marangola, who is handling the case, stated that between June 2017 and August 2019, the defendant stalked an individual (Victim) causing substantial emotional distress.

In 2017, Loria sent the Victim threatening text messages via cellular telephone.  The defendant also sent a series of text messages, pretending to be a member of a local police department, stating that the Victim was an “enemy” of law enforcement and that he knew where all of Victim’s family members lived. Loria texted the Victim the correct addresses of family members. 

In December 2018, the defendant texted the Victim anonymously stating he knew where the Victim lived and everything about the Victim’s minor child, even providing details about the child’s school location, appearance, and the location of the child’s bedroom in the home.

In February 2019, Loria conducted physical surveillance of the Victim by driving by the Victim’s residence and business multiple times. In August 2019, the Victim observed the defendant following the Victim in his vehicle.

The plea is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the direction of Assistant Director Marlin Ritzman, and the Rochester Police Department, under the direction of Chief La’Ron Singletary. 

Sentencing is scheduled for August 12, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. before Judge Wolford.

# # # #

CONTACT: Barbara Burns

PHONE: (716) 843-5817

FAX #: (716) 551-3051

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - U.S. Attorney James P. Kennedy, Jr. announced today that Theodore Loria, 53, of Irondequoit, NY, was arrested and charged by criminal complaint with cyberstalking. The charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and $250,000 fine. 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Melissa M. Marangola, who is handling the case, stated that according to the complaint, the Buffalo FBI Cyber Task Force was notified in June 2018 of a possible cyber stalking campaign being executed by the defendant.

Subsequent investigation determined that the Victim in the case met Loria in May 2015 at her place of employment. Shortly after that meeting, the defendant expressed an interest in dating, which was not reciprocated by the Victim. In September 2015, Loria contacted the Victim and told her that her life was in danger and they needed to talk. During a conversation, the defendant told the Victim that he had overheard her ex-boyfriend in a restaurant say that the Victim was better off dead and that the ex-boyfriend was going to kill her. Loria then offered to keep an eye on the ex-boyfriend and the Victim to ensure her safety.

On October 31, 2015, the defendant told the Victim that he had seen a mysterious car circling her property and that he chased it away. Loria also said that Halloween is an easy night to commit murder because it was the one night when wearing a mask was not questioned. The defendant told the Victim he would stay on her driveway through the night to ensure her safety.  

Loria and the Victim became romantically involved for approximately three months from late spring to early summer of 2016. During that time, the defendant became protective of the Victim, jealous of any male clients or employees, and routinely monitored her Facebook page, commenting to her about online conversations she had with males on the Facebook page.

In the summer of 2016, the Victim began to distance herself from Loria. In June 2016, the defendant asked to meet the Victim at a local coffee shop, during which he gave her a diamond ring so that people would know the Victim was spoken for. The Victim refused to take the ring. Loria stated “take the (expletive) ring” and “put the (expletive) ring on your (expletive) finger.” The Victim kept the ring and left the coffee shop. The defendant followed the Victim to another location where he apologized. The two did not speak for several months after. Months later the Victim saw Loria in her driveway. He told her, “give me my (expletive) ring back,” which the Victim did.  

In the months to follow, the Victim received threatening phone calls and text messages from the defendant. One text read, “Your DEAD cop calling (expletive) [address of Victim].” And during one phone call, Loria stated he would burn down her place of business. The defendant also told the Victim that he had connections to the mafia and to cold-blooded killers who owed him favors, and who would take care of people who crossed him. 

In February 2017, Loria confronted the Victim and her ex-boyfriend at a restaurant. The defendant approached the ex-boyfriend and told him that he would beat him every day for the rest of his life and that if he went to jail that he would beat him again after he got out. Following this incident, the Victim began receiving escalating threats via phone call, text message, or in person at her place of business. Loria stated that the Victim had crossed him and he had no choice but to teach her a lesson. 

In a series of text messages, emails, and phone calls, the defendant also accused the Victim of plotting with Charlie Tan to murder him. In 2015, Charlie Tan was accused of murdering his father, but a state court jury failed to reach a verdict. However, in November 2018, Tan was sentenced to serve 20 years in prison on federal gun charges. The Victim confirmed to investigators that she allowed Tan to volunteer at her place of business during his legal proceedings.  

 

The defendant made an initial appearance today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman and was detained. Loria is schedule to be back in court on September 18, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. 

Members of the public who have information related to this case are asked to call the Federal Bureau of Investigation at 585-546-2220.

The criminal complaint is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Gary Loeffert, and the Rochester Police Department, under the direction of Chief La’Ron Singletary. 

The fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.  

 

# # # #

Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   WD-NY  6:19-mj-00679
Case Name:   USA v. Loria
  Press Releases:
CONTACT: Barbara Burns

PHONE: (716) 843-5817

FAX #: (716) 551-3051

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - U.S. Attorney James P. Kennedy, Jr. announced today that Theodore Loria, 53, of Irondequoit, NY, was arrested and charged by criminal complaint with cyberstalking. The charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and $250,000 fine. 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Melissa M. Marangola, who is handling the case, stated that according to the complaint, the Buffalo FBI Cyber Task Force was notified in June 2018 of a possible cyber stalking campaign being executed by the defendant.

Subsequent investigation determined that the Victim in the case met Loria in May 2015 at her place of employment. Shortly after that meeting, the defendant expressed an interest in dating, which was not reciprocated by the Victim. In September 2015, Loria contacted the Victim and told her that her life was in danger and they needed to talk. During a conversation, the defendant told the Victim that he had overheard her ex-boyfriend in a restaurant say that the Victim was better off dead and that the ex-boyfriend was going to kill her. Loria then offered to keep an eye on the ex-boyfriend and the Victim to ensure her safety.

On October 31, 2015, the defendant told the Victim that he had seen a mysterious car circling her property and that he chased it away. Loria also said that Halloween is an easy night to commit murder because it was the one night when wearing a mask was not questioned. The defendant told the Victim he would stay on her driveway through the night to ensure her safety.  

Loria and the Victim became romantically involved for approximately three months from late spring to early summer of 2016. During that time, the defendant became protective of the Victim, jealous of any male clients or employees, and routinely monitored her Facebook page, commenting to her about online conversations she had with males on the Facebook page.

In the summer of 2016, the Victim began to distance herself from Loria. In June 2016, the defendant asked to meet the Victim at a local coffee shop, during which he gave her a diamond ring so that people would know the Victim was spoken for. The Victim refused to take the ring. Loria stated “take the (expletive) ring” and “put the (expletive) ring on your (expletive) finger.” The Victim kept the ring and left the coffee shop. The defendant followed the Victim to another location where he apologized. The two did not speak for several months after. Months later the Victim saw Loria in her driveway. He told her, “give me my (expletive) ring back,” which the Victim did.  

In the months to follow, the Victim received threatening phone calls and text messages from the defendant. One text read, “Your DEAD cop calling (expletive) [address of Victim].” And during one phone call, Loria stated he would burn down her place of business. The defendant also told the Victim that he had connections to the mafia and to cold-blooded killers who owed him favors, and who would take care of people who crossed him. 

In February 2017, Loria confronted the Victim and her ex-boyfriend at a restaurant. The defendant approached the ex-boyfriend and told him that he would beat him every day for the rest of his life and that if he went to jail that he would beat him again after he got out. Following this incident, the Victim began receiving escalating threats via phone call, text message, or in person at her place of business. Loria stated that the Victim had crossed him and he had no choice but to teach her a lesson. 

In a series of text messages, emails, and phone calls, the defendant also accused the Victim of plotting with Charlie Tan to murder him. In 2015, Charlie Tan was accused of murdering his father, but a state court jury failed to reach a verdict. However, in November 2018, Tan was sentenced to serve 20 years in prison on federal gun charges. The Victim confirmed to investigators that she allowed Tan to volunteer at her place of business during his legal proceedings.  

 

The defendant made an initial appearance today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman and was detained. Loria is schedule to be back in court on September 18, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. 

Members of the public who have information related to this case are asked to call the Federal Bureau of Investigation at 585-546-2220.

The criminal complaint is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Gary Loeffert, and the Rochester Police Department, under the direction of Chief La’Ron Singletary. 

The fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.  

 

# # # #

Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E