After 12 years fighting for justice Las Vegas Woman Is Hit With Anti-SLAPP Motion

nfirsstoN STATEMENT ,'.T,,T:::X

;:il'J:1ffi-iiT:

inadvertentiy print something tlial

%"

lasvegastribune.csrn

ffi

KffiWreffi

ffi:J';;:::i:,T:;::*:n: ffi

ffi ffi'

I3ffiT:::#,y;$i:iX.:tffiJ#:,'"TI;::,"?#:::#:ll?;#Jl nity the best way we can.

"l may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

After 12 years of fighting for jusfrce

lasUGgas WomrnlsHit

With[nli-StmPffiolion Retaliation for filing a Civi,l Rights Complaint against Family Court Judges, Lawyers, and.Nevada Pubtic Officials By Rolando Innaz Las Vegas Tribune

to be examined by a therapist, counselor, psychologist or similar professional for the purpose of obtaining an expert opinion for trial or hearing e{cept upon court order, upon writen slipulation of i.he parties or pursuanr to the procedure prescribed by NRCP 35 which requires Notice to the parties. Judge Hemdon skted "I also disagree wilh plaintiff's positron and agree with the defense's position that the anti-SLAPP motion is appropriate to bring as well, based upon what the allegations re

NRS a1.637(aX2) states: The third protected class includes any written or oral statement that is truthful or made wi&out knowledge of falsehood ard directly addresses an issue before a legislaiive, executive orjudicial body, or ahy other official proceeding autlorized by law. Ms. Giampa prdduced substantial eviderice that Bryee Duckworth attached as exhibits to a change of custody motion the two psychiatrists'evaluations without a court order Judge Hemdon failed to apply the two-step process pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, and it should not apply when granting imunity to all the defendmts. Bryce Duckworth, Smith Larsen & Wixom's speech does not exempt them from imuity because il does not apply to their bad faith conduct when they fraudulendy solicited the psychological services oftwo psychiatrists to evaluate Ms. Gia.rnpa's son because no litigation was pending on a change of custody. Even if the antiSLAPP statute did apply, the essence of the action was that the judges and the pdvate defendants, while acting under cnlor of law, engaged in a conspiracy to deprive Ms. Giampa and her children a parent-child relationship. Ms. Giampa was deprived notice, a hearing, and an order as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Sanchez approved Bryce Duckworth's bad faith conduct when he cites and use as legal authority the two psychiatrists' evaluations in his motion. Judge Sanchez violated the Best Interest of the Child statutes without making a Finding of a substantial change ofcircumstance dnd whether it was in the best interest of the children. Ms. Giampa believes she filed a legirimate civil rights complaint. It was filed because of the constitutional violatiotis the defendants comnitted in the change ofcustody. She placed the Nevada Supreme Court on notice of the defendants' violations and it refused to intervene, to prevent, to stop the olher defendants from violating the law and to enforce Best [ntercst of the Child Statutes. It ordered Bryce Duckworth, Esq., to reply to the issue ofviolations ofEDCR 5.i2(a), yet failed to address the issue. It deliberately mooted out constitrL tional issues of the children's education and welfare. Ms. Giampa said, "tr believe this is the first time that the antiSLAPP has ever been used against a parent awarded primary custody attempting to guide her children's education and protect their welfare. The strategic lawsuit gives anyone with power the opportunity to intimidate any parent into silence." Judge Hemdon's ruling could have a chilling effect on the average citizen who decides to file a civil rights complaint seeking redress for constitutional violations against fraud and comrption running rampant in Family Court. ,

Bryce Duckworth's attorney, Craig Mariam of Gordon & Rees, filed a Motion to Rdmove the civil righis comptaiat to federal court as well as a Special

Motion to Dismiss under anri-SLAPP

ing family or domestic ffiatters and ile resolved by state corut. Irlevada's anti-SLAPP statute's intended pu.pose was dkected against individuais and groups that spoke in public forums against real estate development. AntiSLAPP motions have also

Voltaire

Ms. Giarnpa, representing herself in proper person, cited the case of Gregg John in her opposition: "When a party moves for a special motion to dismiss under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute, it bea(s the initial burden ofproduction and persuasion. This means the movlng party must first make a threshold showing that the lawsuit is based on 'good faith communicationts madel in fuitherance ofthe right to petition' the govemment.'" Courts engage in a two-part analysis, focusing frst on whether the disputed cause of action arises from protected activity under the statute; and then, if it does, the burden shifts to whether the plaintiff can establish a probability of prevailing on the merits.

Judicial District Court (Clark County) against Bryce C. Duckworth, Esq.; Smith, Larsen & Wixom; Judge Gloria S. Sanchez. Judge Sandra L. Pomrcnze. Dr Louis Mortillro and other State and Clark County officials. Giampa's complaini contained both federal and state cau\es of ac[ion. Her claims inclrrde First Amenrlment rcialiation for exercising her right ro prolect her children's welfare; challenging NRS 125.480 'loint custody" that it is undefined Bnd unconstitutional; Fourteenth Amendment violations forihtedering with her puent-chilci relationship; equal protection of the law for conspiring to eman, cipate minor children withoilt ploper notice anri hearing; intent to defraud, and other causes of action. ln response to Ms, Giampa's filing,

l'{unt ordere.d the case sent back to state court. Federal iaw specifically bars federal judges from hearing cases rega:d-

-

Supreme Court ruled in the case of Gregg John v. Douglas County School District, that NRS 41.637 applies to federai causes of action because it is a neutral and procedural statute that does aot undermine any federal interest. The statutes are designed to protect against medtless lawsilits that are filed "primarily to chill the defendant's exercise of First Amendment rights." On June 30, 2010, Ms. Giampa appeared before District Court Judge Douglas Hemdon. She argued that the defendants fraudulently soliciting the psychological Services of two psychiatrists to eyaluate her son were conducted in viblation of EDCR 5.12 md NRCP 35. These coun rules state that no party to any action pending before the court may cause a child who is subject to the jurisdiction of the cour1

here."

On October 8. 2009. Victoria Cimpa fiied a Civil Rights Cotrplaint in Eighth

(Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Pmticipation). Ms" Ciampa opposed each ofthe defendants' mctions ofdismissal under tlie ailti-SLAPP Sralute. On March 3,2010, Federal Court Chief Judge Roger L.

Distributed by Strip Advertising

Disrbt Court Judge Daaglat Hemdoit

who of minorities, women and

been used against those individuals

have worked publicly lor the rights

cotsumersl

workers. Nevada's anti-SLAPF motion allows the defendants to file a special motion to dismiss a lawsuit in the early stages of court proceedings. Defendanis must show that the lawsuit against them aises from their protected speech or petitioning activity. The plaintiffmust then demonstraie that his/ her claim is both legally sufficient and

supported by facts to sustain a favorable judgment. I{ ihe plaintifl'fails io meet this burden, the lawsuitis dismissedwith prejudice. The motion must be brought within 60 days, and discovery proceedings are stayed until ajudge resolves the motion. A defendant who loses the motion to dismiss has the nght to an immediate appeal, and a claim dismissed ofl the motion must be dismissed with prejudice. On November 25, 2009, the Nevada (See SLAPP, Page 7)