New Jersey fireman who sensationally used 40th birthday party to confront 'cheater' wife reveals next move
Nick Galante, 40, a firefighter from Belleville, and his wife, Samantha Egues, 33, have been married for over three years and share two young children.
But their fairytale came crashing down publicly when Nick told a room full of their loved ones that Samantha had been unfaithful. Now, he's slapped her with divorce papers, reports the New York Post.
Though the couple reportedly continued living under the same roof after the viral incident, insiders say there's little hope for reconciliation now as 'the trust has been lost.' The papers were filed on May 17.
The dramatic showdown unfolded earlier this month during a surprise birthday bash organized by Samantha herself.
What was supposed to be a joyful celebration quickly spiraled into chaos when Nick took the mic - and took down his wife.
In a scene that has been viewed millions of times across social media, Nick called Samantha to stand beside him, saying he had a special 'gift' for her.
Referencing her ring and noting he was wearing the same shirt he wore when he proposed, he asked her to hand it over which she did, likely expecting an upgrade.
But instead of placing a new diamond on her hand, Nick planted a so-called mafia kiss of death on her lips, a mob boss symbol signifying a crime family member has been marked for death.
The New Jersey firefighter then launched into an explicit rant that has been shared widely on the internet, telling Samantha: 'I f****** know everything. That's right, b****. I know everything.'
He claimed he had seen pictures of her unidentified lover's penis and was aware that she allegedly took emergency contraception pills.
He yelled 'I f****** hate you' and 'I hate what you did to my children, the life you f****** stole from them'.
Friends and family only watched in horror as the drama played out.
Since then, the internet has been ablaze, with many rallying behind Nick and others demanding more proof of Samantha's alleged affair.
However, soon after the fiery party fiasco, Nick officially filed for divorce, citing shattered trust and irreconcilable differences, the Post reported.
'Nick is ready to move on and put this entire chapter of his life behind him,' a close friend told the Post. 'The trust there is lost, which is sad for their [two] kids. Frankly, I can't really blame him for [pursuing] the divorce, because he's still fairly young.'
Their fairytale came crashing down publicly when Nick told a room full of their loved ones that Samantha had been unfaithful. Now, he's slapped her with divorce papers, reports the New York Post.
Another added, 'The video [of the confrontation] going viral didn't help. There's really no coming back from that - it's going to [live] forever online. It's sad for those kids.'
'You don't confront your wife in front of every single person you know like that unless you're certain in your heart you're done [with her],' a source told the Post. 'There are lots of lessons to be learned here.'
Despite the meltdown going viral and the divorce papers being served, Samantha previously claimed the couple may not be done just yet.
'We're trying to work things out,' she told the Daily Mail after being reached by phone on May 14.
Declining to give a formal statement, she added, 'I don't know what videos you've seen but there's a lot of misinformation out there. I appreciate you calling me... I will tell Nick you called and if we are ready to give a statement, we will be in touch.'
As of now, neither Nick nor Samantha has commented publicly.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Woman hurled in jail after letting grass in front of her home go brown during hot weather
A woman in Florida was thrown in jail after letting the grass in front of her home go brown during hot weather, violating HOA guidelines. Irena Green was arrested and spent a week in jail after a battle with her homeowner's association in Hillsborough County over browning grass in front of her home. 'I think they have way too much power,' Green told ABC news. 'I've never heard of anything like this in my life.' Green said her grass is often not green due to a large tree that's planted near her sidewalk, as well as mandatory watering restrictions that were put in place last year following a drought. She claimed, however, that her lawn was not the worst looking in the Riverview Creek View subdivision. 'If you drive around my neighborhood, you'll see there's plenty of yards not up to par,' she added. The Trowbridge Company Inc., the HOA management company, began notifying her of the violations, which spanned a range of issues including her browning lawn and a dirty mailbox, Green said. 'The grass had started turning brown. So they started sending notes, and it went from the grass being brown to there's a dent in my garage.' Green said the grass often isn't green in her yard due to a large tree that's planted near her sidewalk as well as mandatory watering restrictions last year following a drought On May 23, as she drove home with her daughter, she was pulled over and asked to step out of her vehicle and she was arrested and booked into the Orient Road Jail Green also was notified of violations including owning a commercial cargo van, which is not the only in her neighborhood, ABC reported. But as she failed to comply with the guidelines and respond to a request for mediation, the HOA filed a lawsuit against her alleging that she violated community appearance rules. Yet as she attempted to represent herself in court, she was told last July by the judge that she had around a month to fix the violations. 'My grass had to be brought up to par. He said you can get seed, you can do something, but you've got 30 days to get it corrected. So I said fine. He said if it's not done in 30 days, you're gonna go to jail,' Green told the outlet. Green said she did what she could to comply, even selling her van and cleaning her mailbox. She bought seed and watered her grass, but missed her next court date and claimed she hadn't been notified to appear at the hearing last August. 'I was supposed to receive documentation. Nothing was sent to my home,' Green said. 'And I reached out to the courthouse several times to try to find out when was my court date.' Green said she did what she could to comply, even selling her van and cleaning her mailbox. She bought seed and watered her grass, but missed her next court date and claimed she hadn't been notified to appear at the hearing last August Yet, the judge ordered that she was in contempt of court and a warrant was issued for her arrest. On May 23, as she drove home with her daughter, she was pulled over and asked to step out of her vehicle. 'He asked me can I get out. When I got out he said, "Ms. green, did you know that you have a warrant for your arrest?"' Green said. She was arrested and booked into the Orient Road Jail, according to ABC News. Yet, she was placed into custody without bond. 'So I couldn't even go home to my family. I sat in there for seven days. Seven days in the jailhouse like a criminal,' she added. Green described the process of being booked into the jail as 'horrible.' 'I work hard to buy this home for me and my kids in a better neighborhood and environment and to be taken to jail and to be treated like that for brown grass at my own home... that's horrible,' she said. She even described being held in jail with other inmates who queried why she was being held in custody. 'One girl, she kind of came over and asked me like "Hey, what are you in here for?" And I told her it was like for my grass,' Green said. 'And she's like 'Oh grass, they should make that stuff legal'. She's thinking that I'm talking about weed and I'm talking about my front yard grass.' Green's sister, a paralegal, filed a petition six-days after she was booked into the jail which requested an emergency hearing. 'I went to court, and I had to be shackled from my hands to my feet,' Green said as she recalled being the only person in county civil court wearing a jail uniform. In court, the HOA's attorney even opposed her release, Green said: 'He says "Well, it hasn't been resodded. The whole yard needs to be re-sodded." And she's like not from those pictures I see. She's like "No. I want her released immediately."' 'He wanted me to continue to sit in jail and not come home to my family,' she added. In a statement to the outlet, the Creek View HOA Board of Directors said: 'Ms. Green received notices of violations. She disregarded them. Legal action was filed by the Association after she failed to accept the offer to mediate the matter, pre-suit, as is required before a lawsuit can be filed...' 'After suit was filed and final judgment was entered against her, Ms. Green showed up for the court hearing on July 11, 2024... At the July 11 hearing, with Ms. Green present, another court date was set by the judge for August 19, 2024. 'She was instructed to comply with the requirements of the final judgment by August 19 and to report to the judge what was accomplished on August 19. Ms. Green failed to show up in court on August 19. 'Her failure to abide by the Court's instruction led to the arrest warrant being steps were taken by the Court due to Ms. Green's failure to comply with the Court's instructions.' While Green was released the next day following her hearing, she said: 'I definitely wish I would have hired a lawyer.'
The Guardian
32 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Musk's X must face claim of negligence over child abuse images, judge rules
A federal appeals court on Friday revived part of a lawsuit accusing Elon Musk's X of becoming a haven for child exploitation, though the court said the platform deserves broad immunity from claims over objectionable content. While rejecting some claims, the ninth US circuit court of appeals in San Francisco said X, formerly Twitter, must face a claim it was negligent by failing to promptly report a video containing explicit images of two underage boys to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). The case predated Musk's 2022 purchase of Twitter. A trial judge had dismissed the case in December 2023. X's lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Musk was not a defendant. One plaintiff, John Doe 1, said he was 13 when he and a friend, John Doe 2, were lured, on Snapchat, into providing nude photos of themselves to someone John Doe 1 thought was a 16-year-old girl at his school. The Snapchat user was actually a child abuse images trafficker who blackmailed the plaintiffs into providing additional photos. Those images were later compiled into a video that was posted on Twitter. According to court papers, Twitter took nine days after learning about the content to take it down and report it to NCMEC, following more than 167,000 views, court papers showed. Circuit judge Danielle Forrest said section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from liability over user content, did not shield X from the negligence claim once it learned about the images. 'The facts alleged here, coupled with the statutory 'actual knowledge' requirement, separates the duty to report child pornography to NCMEC from Twitter's role as a publisher,' she wrote for a three-judge panel. X must also face a claim its infrastructure made it too difficult to report child abuse images. It was found immune from claims it knowingly benefited from sex trafficking, and created search features that 'amplify' child abuse images posts. Dani Pinter, a lawyer at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, which represented the plaintiffs, said in a statement: 'We look forward to discovery and ultimately trial against X to get justice and accountability.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The inside story of the Murdoch editor taking on Donald Trump
The danger posed to Donald Trump was obvious. It was a story that not only drew attention to his links to a convicted sex offender, it also risked widening a growing wedge between the president and some of his most vociferous supporters. The White House quickly concluded a full-force response was required. It was Tuesday 15 July. The Wall Street Journal had approached Trump's team, stating it planned to publish allegations that Trump had composed a crude poem and doodle as part of a collection compiled for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday. The claim would have been damaging at any moment, but the timing was terrible for the president. The Epstein issue was developing into the biggest crisis of his presidency. Strident Maga supporters had been angered by the Trump administration's refusal to release government files relating to the late sex offender. Trump and his loyal press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, reached for the nuclear option. From Air Force One, they called the Journal's British editor-in-chief, Emma Tucker. They turned up the heat. Trump fumed that the letter was fake. Drawing wasn't his thing. Threats were made to sue, a course of action he had previously unleashed against other perceived media enemies. Washington DC began to hum with rumours that the Journal had a hot story on its hands. When no article materialised on Wednesday, some insiders perceived a growing confidence within the White House that their rearguard action had killed the story. They were wrong. DC's gossip mill had reached fever pitch by Thursday afternoon. The article finally emerged in the early evening. The city collectively stopped to read. In the hours that followed publication, the tension intensified. Trump revealed he had confronted Tucker, stating the story was 'false, malicious, and defamatory'. By Friday, he had filed a lawsuit suing the Journal and its owners for at least $10bn (£7.6bn). Tucker was at the centre of a maelstrom of stress and political pressure. It was the greatest challenge of her two and a half years heading the Journal, but far from the first. Two months in, having been parachuted in from London, she was fronting a campaign to have the reporter Evan Gershkovich returned from a Russian prison. She had also faced denunciations from journalists as she pushed through a modernisation drive that included brutal layoffs. Her plans focused on giving stories a sharper edge. On that metric, the Trump call suggested she was overachieving. Throughout her rise, an enigmatic quality has surrounded Tucker. Friends, colleagues and even some critical employees describe an amiable, fun and disarmingly grounded person. Many regarded her ability to retain such qualities in the treacherous terrain of the Murdoch empire as uncanny. The puzzle is exacerbated by the assumption she does not share the rightwing, pro-Brexit views of Rupert Murdoch, News Corp's legendary mogul. Yet Murdoch doesn't hand the Journal to just anyone. While the pro-Maga Fox News is his empire's cash cow, the Journal is his prized possession, giving him power and respectability in wider US political circles, as the Times does in the UK. So, why Tucker? The answer, according to people who have worked with her, is her possession of two qualities Murdoch rates highly: a willingness to make unpopular decisions for the sake of his businesses and a lust for a politically contentious scoop. Lionel Barber, a former Financial Times editor who also worked with Tucker for the FT in Brussels, said: 'She has a very sharp nose for a good news story – always did.' Tucker edited the University of Oxford's student magazine, the Isis, and joined the FT as a graduate trainee. 'She was a very convivial colleague, great company and good on a night out, but you knew when it came down to the work, she would nail it,' said a colleague. 'Very hard-nosed.' After stints in Brussels and Berlin, she won a powerful ally in Robert Thomson, then the FT's foreign editor. Thomson became a close friend to Murdoch, a fellow Australian, while working in the US for the FT. Thomson jumped ship to edit the Times of London in 2002 and in 2008 was dispatched to New York to oversee Murdoch's freshly acquired Journal. Before he went, Thomson helped lure Tucker to the Times, where she eventually became deputy editor. It was her elevation to editor of the Sunday Times in 2020 that seems to have impressed Murdoch. She showed a willingness to make difficult staffing decisions and widened the Sunday Times's digital ambitions, recasting the pro-Brexit paper to appeal to a wider audience. It was there she made an enemy of her first populist world leader. Just months into her tenure, the Sunday Times published a damning account of how Boris Johnson, the then UK prime minister, had handled the Covid pandemic. Downing Street erupted, taking the unusual step of issuing a lengthy rebuttal, denouncing 'falsehoods and errors'. The paper was called 'the most hostile paper in the country' to Johnson's government, despite having backed him at the previous year's election. Rachel Johnson, the former prime minister's sister, is one of Tucker's closest friends. 'I don't think she was ever reckless,' said one Sunday Times staffer. 'But I think she absolutely wanted to push the boundaries of getting as much into the public domain as she possibly could.' Many assumed Tucker's destiny was to edit the Times, but she was catapulted to New York to run the Journal at the start of 2023, immediately embarking on a painful streamlining process. Senior editors were axed. Pulitzer prize winners ditched. The DC bureau, the most powerful, was particularly targeted with layoffs and new leadership. One reporter spoke of people crying, another of the process's serious mental impact. It made Tucker's editorship divisive, leading to the extraordinary spectacle of journalists plastering her unoccupied office with sticky notes denouncing the layoffs. Even some who accepted cuts questioned the methods. Several pointed to the use of 'performance improvement plans', with journalists claiming they had been handed unrealistic targets designed to push them out the door. One described it as 'gratuitously cruel'. A Journal spokesperson said: 'Performance improvement plans are used to set clear objectives and create a development plan that gives an employee feedback and support to meet those objectives. They are being used exactly as designed.' The Tucker enigma re-emerged at the Journal, as staff noted the same mix of personable demeanour, enthusiasm for stories and willingness to make cuts. 'She's very emotionally intelligent – like, the 99th percentile,' said one. They said morale had improved more recently. New hires have followed. A cultural shift on stories also arrived. What emerges is a Tucker Venn diagram. At its overlapping centre lie stories with two qualities: they cover legitimate areas of public importance and aim squarely at eye-catching topics with digital reach. Tucker gave investigative reporters the examples of Elon Musk and China as two potential areas. Some complained the topics were 'clickbaity'. However, one journalist who had had reservations conceded: 'Musk turned out to be a pretty good topic.' Tucker's use of metrics around web traffic and time spent reading a story irked some reporters. Headlines were made more direct. Honorifics such as 'Mr' and 'Mrs' were ditched. There was a ban on stories having more than three bylines. 'She loosened a lot of the strictures that we had,' said one staffer. 'We're encouraged to write more edgy stories.' Positioning the Journal as a punchy rival to the liberal New York Times juggernaut may be a good business plan, but doing so while not falling foul of Murdoch's politics remains a delicate balance. 'There's a particular moment now where the Wall Street Journal has to prove its mettle as the pre-eminent business and financial markets media organisation,' said Paddy Harverson, a contemporary of Tucker's at the FT, now a communications executive. 'They're up against Trump, yet they have an historically centre-right editorial view. She has guided the paper along that tightrope really well.' Allies said Tucker laid a marker of intent in terms of punchy stories when she published an article on the alleged cognitive decline of Joe Biden. It was initially described as a 'hit piece' by the Biden administration. Some see the Epstein story as the latest evidence of Tucker's shift. There are journalists, however, who blame Trump's response for giving the story attention it simply didn't warrant. Others disagree about the extent of Tucker's changes, pointing to the Journal's history of breaking contentious stories, including the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels. However, the net result of the Epstein letter saga has been to draw attention to Tucker's attempted change in tone. Trump's lawsuit means the furore may only just be beginning. Many seasoned media figures assume Murdoch, who does not respond well to bullying, will not back down. However, neither billionaire will relish having to face depositions and disclosures. Any settlement from Murdoch could put pressure on Tucker, depending on its details. Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal, has said it has 'full confidence in the rigour and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit'. The courts may yet reject Trump's case. 'I don't think [Murdoch] will just flop over,' said Barber. 'The issue here is that Trump went around boasting that he killed the story … For an editor, that's very difficult. But I'm pretty damn confident there's no way [Tucker] would publish without having it properly sourced.'
