JURY TRIAL WANDED

Case No.:
%1111.1M10
1611.1.11.11.7111.I
REC EIV ED
F ILED
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
JUL 1 d 2 0 1 4
1
POTS YLVANIA CIRCUIT COURT
V IRGINIA:
IN THE C IRC UIT C OURT OF SPOTSYLV ANIA C OUNTY
Fred erick R. Gruber,
Plaintiff,
v.
Thomas D. Gear,
Defend ant.
COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, Fred erick Gruber, by counsel, and for causes of action
against Defend ant Thomas D. Gear states:
1 . That Plaintiff, Fred erick Gruber, is a resid ent of Louisa County, Virginia.
2 . That, upon information and belief, Defend ant, Thomas D. Gear is a resid ent of
Hampton, Virginia.
3. That the Plaintiff is the Chairman of the S eventh Congressional District
Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia.
4 . That, upon information and belief, the Defend ant controls and is the owner of that
certain website purporting to be called "TOTHEWOODS HED.COM," hereinafter referred to as
the "Wood shed ."
5. That in approximately early July, 2 0 1 4 , the Wood shed published certain false and
d efamatory material about the Plaintiff und er the guise of provid ing information to the public
concerning Virginia politics.
6. That S potsylvania County is a proper venue for this case since the website was
accessible in S potsylvania County, that a majority of S potsylvania County is located within the
S eventh Congressional District and , upon information and belief, multiple persons accessed the
website within S potsylvania County.
7.
That the Wood shed , intend ed this aforementioned d efamatory and false material
to harm the Plaintiff in his position as Chairman and be taken as truthful by the public. Ind eed ,
the Wood shed claims that it's purpose is to "...provid e factual evid ence and minimal ed itorial on
issues and situations that d evelop in politics tod ay."
8. That the d efamatory false material published by the Wood shed is, at the time of
the writing of this Complaint, the only material appearing on the Wood shed and shall be
hereinafter referred to as the "Article." The Article is prominently introd uced by the Wood shed
as follows: "Now our first article of what I hope will provid e some truth in what is happening in
the Republican Party here in Virginia
9. That the Article contains both text and visual images and is attached hereto as
Exhibit 1 and mad e a part of this Complaint.
1 0 . That the Plaintiff, in or about 2 0 0 8, joined an internet d ating website known as
"Datehookup.com" which is owned by a parent company, IAC/InteractiveCorp, which also owns
sites such as About.com, Ask.com, Citysearch.com, Dictioonary.com, Investoped ia, Match.com,
The Daily Beast and Reference.com.
1 1 . That the Defend ant's Article seeks to d efame the Plaintiff in its use and written
d escription and characterization of certain visual images. The first visual image is that of
Plaintiff with another person the Wood shed criticizes for his involvement with the Plaintiff but
appears to be an actual and unaltered and untainted photograph. However, the second visual
image in the Article is both altered and tainted and is utilized to d efame the Plaintiff, to wit:
A. That the prefatory paragraph to this image contains, among others, the
following statement: "If you d are to sign up to site be prepared to be
bombard ed by other sites you would n't want your mom to know exist. This
content is Rated M for Mature aud iences only."
B. That this second image in the Article purports to be a "screen shot" or
supposed reprod uction of a website page on which the Plaintiff is featured
in certain text and photographs and which appears to be his profile or
biography from the Datehookup.com website.
C.
That certain internet ad vertising is also featured in said image which
2
contains an invitation to join another website and features terms such as
"Big Tits," "Ad ult Fun," "Anal S ex," "Horny Chicks," as well as other
terms d esigned to solicit persons with certain sexual urges to visit or join
this other website.
D. That the image or screen shot also d isplays two blacked out photographs
from the Plaintiff's profile with the warning "Censored " obscuring the
photographs.
E. That the Defend ant knew or should have known that the sexually explicit
or suggestive internet ad vertising appearing in the image or screen shot is
not fixed or static and is actually reflective of the internet browsing habits
or browsing history of the viewer taking the image or screen shot rather
than having anything to d o with the Plaintiff.
F. That, upon information and belief, and in a particularly ironic twist, the
sexually explicit ad vertising featured in the screen shot has absolutely
nothing to d o with the proclivities or browsing history of the Plaintiff, but
is likely to be d irectly tied to and tailored to the browsing history of the
Defend ant Thomas D. Gear who attributes no other source for his images.
G. That the Defend ant provid es a website link in the Wood shed Article to the
Datehookup.com biography or profile of the Plaintiff and invites the read er
to click on the link and see the supposed ly offend ing site. Without a
browsing history to sexually explicit or sexually questionable websites, the
ad s appearing are far more generic and of a non-overtly sexual nature. The
very types of websites complained of by the Defend ant is his Article are
only appearing because, based upon Defend ants own website browsing
proclivities, the Datehookup.com
ad vertising algorithm presents sites
likely to interest the Defend ant resulting in the presentation of the
somewhat sexually explicit material.
H. That putting any hypocrisy of the Defendant aside, Defendant knew or
should have known, prior to publication, that the sexually explicit ads
were unrelated to the Plaintiff's biography or profile and had absolutely
nothing to do with the Plaintiff.
I. That Defendant acknowledges no other source for the screen shot in his
Article apart from his posting of a link to the Plaintiff's Datehookup.com
biography or profile.
J. That in an even more intentional effort to defame and injure the Plaintiff,
the image in the Defendant's article presents the profile or biography of
the Plaintiff with two of the images blacked out and bearing the word
"censored" on them. This portion of the image appears to be, and upon
information and belief, was in fact digitally altered by the Defendant to
give the false impression to the reader of the Article that two images on
the Plaintiffs profile or biography were so inappropriate that they had to
be censored. No such "censored" warnings are actually present on the
Plaintiff's profile or biography and in fact, the supposedly censored
photographs are utterly innocent family pictures.
K. That immediately following the above described image or screen shot, the
Defendant writes:
"I am totally shocked and appalled at what I have found here. Who
would have thought Russ Moulton, Jamie Radtke, Pat McSweeney
and C rew would support a man who has a profile on a site of this
nature. I thought these folks were above moral and ethical reproach
but as you can see from F red Gruber's preferences they clearly
don't have a problem with his tendencies. F rom what I have been
told it was out of desperation that they chose Gruber to run as no
one else was willing. I guess in some ways Gruber makes sense
because no real man would go to a site like this unless he was
desperate."
L. That the quoted statement immed iately preced ing this paragraph reveals
the hostile and d eliberately harmful intent of the Defend ant's posting and
is pred icated upon the d emonstrably false website screen shots.
M. That on or about July 3, 2 0 1 4 , the Defend ant was informed of the untrue
and d efamatory nature of the Article and the images contained therein. As
of the d ate of d rafting of this Complaint, the d efamatory Article and the
maliciously altered image d escribed hereinabove continues to be published
on the Wood shed .
1 2 . That in ad d ition to the second visual image in the Article d escribed in Paragraph
1 1 and accompanying subparagraphs, the Defend ant's published Article also has two ad d itional
images with accompanying text which are includ ed to d efame and injure the Plaintiff in his
position as Chairman of the Committee. As with the second image, the third visual image or
screen shot in the Article, along with accompanying text, seeks to d efame and libel the Plaintiff,
to wit:
A. This third visual image is also apparently a screen shot d isplaying a search
page but also featuring two ad vertisements for other websites, one which
appears to solicit person interesting in committing ad ultery and another
seeking persons wishing to trad e photographs and featuring pictures of
women, one of whom is wearing revealing und ergarments.
B. That again, this is ad vertising tailored to the viewer's browsing history and
whatever appetites the ad vertisers presumes the viewer possesses based
upon that history.
C.
That Defend ant acknowled ges no other source for the screen shot in his
Article and features a website link to the Plaintiff's Datehookup.com
biography or profile
D.
That, upon information and belief, acknowled ging the irony of the
5
Defend ant's hypocritical and d efamatory rantings again, and as more
completely d escribed in reference to the preceed ing visual image in the
Article in Paragraph 1 1 and its subparagraphs, the sexually explicit
ad vertising featured in the screen shot has absolutely nothing to d o with
the proclivities or browsing history of the Plaintiff, but is, in fact, d ue to an
ad vertising algorithm which d irectly ties such ad vertising to the browsing
history of the Defend ant, Thomas D. Gear since he cites no other source.
E. The paragraph immed iately following the third visual image the Defend ant
once again characterizes the image in a typically false, overblown and
d efamatory way that:
"One might think, well its just a d ating site, but clearly the site
content says otherwise. Its obvious to me that Gruber knew what
he was signing up for and what he was looking for in his quest. I
have to wond er what David Brat, the Republican nominee for 7th
District was thinking when he pushed to get Gruber elected . His
actions now will tell me where his moral compass points when he
becomes publicly aware of his District Chairman's d ark secret. I
also have to wond er if Jamie Rad tke and Pat McS weeney who
nominated Fred Gruber would stand before the 7th District
Convention and d o so again now knowing this tawd ry
information."
F. The clear intent of the Defend ant is to injure the Plaintiff in his reputation
and harm his ability to perform his d uties as Chairman.
1 3. That in ad d ition to the second and third visual images in the Article d escribed in
Paragraphs 1 1 and 1 2 and accompanying subparagraphs, the Defend ant's published Article also
has a fourth image with accompanying text, which was includ ed to d efame and injure the
Plaintiff in his position as Chairman of the Committee. As with the previous two images, this
final and fourth image or screen shot in the Article, along with accompanying text, seeks to
d efame and libel the Plaintiff, to wit:
A. This fourth visual image is somewhat less clear and appears to be a single
6
ad vertising ad without any apparent connection to the Datehookup.com

website. It has a woman apparently d ressed only in her und ergarments
with a portion of her lower bod y blacked out und er a "censored " label
which appears to be d igitally ad d ed to the ad by the Defend ant because it
is id entical to those Defend ant ad d ed to the second visual image. It has
copy which states that "THIS IS NOT A DATING S ITE! You must be
willing to service ugly girls at a moments notice."
B. This is either a website ad which appeared on Defend ant's web browser, as
previously d escribed , d ue to the Defend ant's browsing history or is simply
some rand om inappropriate ad placed by the Defend ant to strengthen his
false claim that the Plaintiff was engaged in some inappropriate activity.
The d efamatory intent in the placement of the "censored " warning also
seeks to create a false and d efamatory impression as d escribed in
Paragraph 1 1 and subparagraphs, herein above.
C. That, upon information and belief, acknowled ging the irony of the
Defend ant's hypocritical and d efamatory rantings again, and as more
completely d escribed in reference to the preceed ing visual images in the
Article, as d escribed herein above in Paragraph 1 1 and 1 2 and its
subparagraphs, the sexually explicit ad vertising featured in the screen shot
has absolutely nothing to d o with the proclivities or browsing history of
the Plaintiff, but is d ue to an ad vertising algorithm which d irectly ties such
ad vertising to the browsing history of the Defend ant, Thomas D. Gear
since he lists no other source for his screen shots.
D. That the Defend ant knew or should have known, prior to publication, that
the sexually explicit or suggestive internet 'ad vertising is not fixed or static
and had nothing to d o with the Plaintiff.
E. That if this was not ad vertising generated d ue to the viewer's, apparently
the Defend ant's, own sexually explicit browsing history, then it was some
other image of an ad which Defend ant simply ad d ed to falsely paint
Plaintiff as someone engaged in, as he puts it, "tawd ry" behavior.
F. In the final paragraph of the Article, Defend ant reveals his motive for the
false statements and baseless accusation mad e in his published Article,
namely, to have the Plaintiff removed from office. To wit:
"S o now we know the real Fred Gruber and with rumors swirling
about other troubling issues in Gruber's past this story is far from
over. What is sad is that a family man of character and high moral
fiber was replaced by a man who at the least lacks good jud gment.
I wond er after read ing this article and seeing Gruber's profile on
this website will the GOP faithful in the 7th District rally to call for
Gruber's removal? Will Russ Moulton, Jamie Rad tke, Pat
McS weeney, S teve Albertson and Team try to make excuses for
their poor jud gment in selecting Gruber? Or will they d o the right
thing for the GOP in the 7th District and call for Gruber to resign."
G. The viciously false screed by the Defend ant conclud es with a petty
reference to the only ad featuring buttons, d escribed in paragraph 9.C.,
herein above, captured from the Defend ant's own tailored view: "Oh and
one last thing Mr. Gruber what button d id you select to look for your
hook up?"
1 4 . That Plaintiff, d oes not see any sexually explicit or pro-ad ultery ad vertising when
he views the webpage linked in the Article since d oes not frequent ad ultery or sex oriented
websites.
1 5. That Defend ant, Thomas Gear, apparently d oes see sexually oriented and pro-
ad ultery ad s when he views and took screen shots of the same webpage linked in his Article.
Defend ant had a d uty to take reasonable steps to ensure that his own browsing of sexually
oriented or pro-ad ultery sites d id not contaminate his view of the d atehookup.com site, such as
clearing his browsing history prior to taking screen shots. Certainly, caution is warranted prior to
8
publishing that Plaintiff was acting in a manner inappropriate to his office when, in hind sight, it
appears that since he claims no other source, each and every sexually oriented ad featured in the
screen shots only appeared d ue to the Defend ant's own, as he puts it, "d ark secret."
1 6. That, upon information and belief, in ad d ition to the posting of the previously
alleged false and d efamatory Article regard ing the Plaintiff on the Wood shed , Defend ant has also
emailed prominent Republican lead ers, elected officials and party activists regard ing his Article.
1 7. That, upon information and belief, Defend ant has continued to publish the Article
on the Wood shed website and has sent at least one ad d itional email to prominent Republican
lead ers, elected officials and party activists proclaiming his Article is true.
1 8. That the publication by the Defend ant of the Article and ad d itional publication by
his subsequent emails were d one with knowled ge that the material published was false, or with
reckless d isregard to whether it was true or not, so as to constitute actual malice.
1 9. That the Article and subsequent emails, d irectly and ind irectly, falsely attribute to
the Plaintiff qualities which make him unfit to hold the office of Chairman, or that he lacks
integrity in the performance or d ischarge of his d uties as Chairman, and thus constitute
d efamation per se.
2 0 . That publication of the false statements and the false and mislead ing images by
the Defend ant in the Article and his ad d itional publication by subsequent emails were all
unreasonably d one d espite knowled ge of their manifest and apparent potential to cause great
harm to the Plaintiff as well as with knowled ge that there was no factual basis upon which to
make such statements or create such false images as d escribed above and that such publication of
such d efamation would harm the reputation of the Plaintiff also constitutes d efamation per se.
2 1 . That as a d irect and proximate result of the d efamatory and d efamatory per se
actions of the Defend ant herein, the Plaintiff has been and will continue to suffer great d amages,
emotional d istress, d amage to his reputation, embarrassment, humiliation, inconvenience, mental
anguish, stress pain suffering and loss in enjoyment of life.
9
22. That due to the willful, intentional and malicious nature of the actions of
Defendant, of such a degree so as to constitute actual malice, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive
damages.
WHEREF ORE, Plaintiff, F rederick R. Gruber, respectfully prays that he be granted
judgment against Defendant Thomas D. Gear in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for general and
special damages sustained; such punitive damages as are appropriate and in accordance with the
law; that the Thomas D. Gear be ordered to remove any and all defamatory postings on the
TOTHE WOODSHED.C OM website regarding the Plaintiff and he be enjoined from further
dissemination of the Article and for such other and appropriate relief as his cause demands and to
justice seems meet.
A jury trial is d emand ed .
Respectfully submitted,
F rederick R. Gruber
Of C ounsel
Michael J. George, V SB 33033
C ounsel for C omplainant
1440 C entral Park Boulevard, Suite 205
F redericksburg, V irginia 22401
Phone: (540) 372-4440
F acsimile: (888) 735-7262
10
NOTARY PUBLIC
VERIFICATION
I, Fred erick R. Gruber, swear that the foregoing Complaint is true and correct to the best
of my knowled ge and belief.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

CITY/COUNTY OF
I 1 Z .7. (k.51 (1 (-- , to-wit:
That, Fred erick R. Gruber, having id entified himself and presented sufficient and ad equate
proof of id entity, after having first been sworn, d id subscribe his name to the foregoing Complaint.
Given und er my hand this

. d ay of
s
, 2 0 1 4 .
My Commission Expires: C
MaryAnne D. S pruill
Commonwealth of Virginia
Notary Public
Commission No. 330 335
niy Commission Expires :0 /31 1 2 0 1 5
1 1
OFFICIAL RECEIPT
SPOTSYLVANIA CIRCUIT COURT
CIVIL
DATE: 07/16/14 TIME: 16:01:45 ACCOUNT: 177CL14000723-00 RECEIPT: 14000017748
CASHIER: JFS REG: SV96 FILING: GTOR TYPE: FULL PAYMENT
CASE COMMENTS: GRUBER, FREDERICK R V. GEAR, THOMAS D
ACCT OF: GRUBER, FREDERICK R RECD: GRUBER, FREDERICK R
CHECK: $349.00 2772
DESCRIPTION 1: PLAINTIFF: GRUBER, FREDERICK R
2: NO HEARING SCHEDULED
CODE DESCRIPTION PAID CODE DESCRIPTION PAID
304 CLERK CIVIL FEE 290.00 049 WRIT TAX - CIVIL 25.00
106 TECHNOLOGY TRST FND 5.00 123 LEGAL AID FEE 9.00
147 INDIGENT ASSISTANCE 1.00 170 COURT TECH FUND 10.00
219 LAW LIBRARY 4.00 229 CHMF
2.00
228 CHCF .00 442 TRANSFERS TO 113/31 3.00
TENDERED : 349.00
AMOUNT PAID: 349.00
CHANGE AMT : .00
CLERK OF COURT: CHRISTALYN M. JETT
PAYOR'S COPY
RECEIPT COPY 1 OF 2