nfirsstoN

STATEMENT
nity the best way we can.
By Rolando Innaz
Las Vegas Tribune
On October 8. 2009. Victoria Cimpa
fiied a Civil Rights Cotrplaint in Eighth
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 com-
plaini contained both federal and state
cau\es of ac[ion. Her claims inclrrde
First Amenrlment rcialiation for exercis-
ing her right ro prolect her children's
welfare; challenging NRS 125.480
'loint custody" that it is undefined Bnd
unconstitutional; Fourteenth Amend-
ment violations forihtedering with her
puent-chilci relationship; equal protec-
tion of the law for conspiring to eman,
cipate minor children withoilt ploper no-
tice anri hearing; intent to defraud, and
other causes of action.
ln response to Ms, Giampa's filing,
Bryce Duckworth's attorney, Craig
Mariam of Gordon & Rees, filed a Mo-
tion to Rdmove the civil righis comptaiat
to federal court as well as a Special
Motion to Dismiss under anri-SLAPP
(Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Pm-
ticipation).
Ms" Ciampa opposed each ofthe de-
fendants' mctions ofdismissal under tlie
ailti-SLAPP Sralute. On March 3,2010,
Federal Court Chief Judge Roger L.
l'{unt ordere.d the case sent back to state
court. Federal iaw specifically bars fed-
eral judges from hearing cases rega:d-
ing family or domestic ffiatters and ile
resolved by state corut.
Irlevada's anti-SLAPP statute's in-
tended pu.pose was dkected against in-
dividuais and groups that spoke in pub-
lic forums against real estate develop-
ment. AntiSLAPP motions have also
%"
been used against those individuals who supported by facts to sustain a favorable
have worked publicly lor the rights of judgment. I{ ihe plaintifl'fails io meet
cotsumersl
workers.
your
right to say it.'
-
Voltaire
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 under-
mine 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
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
here."
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.
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 psychia-
trists'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 ser-
vices 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 ac-
tion 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 de-
prived 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 psychia-
trists' evaluations in his motion. Judge Sanchez violated the Best
Interest of the Child statutes without making a Finding of a substan-
tial 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 inter-
vene, 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 anti-
SLAPP has ever been used against a parent awarded primary cus-
tody attempting to guide her children's education and protect their
welfare. The strategic lawsuit gives anyone with power the opportu-
nity to intimidate any parent into silence."
Judge Hemdon's ruling could have a chilling effect on the aver-
age citizen who decides to file a civil rights complaint seeking re-
dress for constitutional violations against fraud and comrption run-
ning rampant in Family Court.
minorities, women and this burden, the lawsuitis dismissedwith
prejudice. The motion must be brought
within 60 days, and discovery proceed-
ings are stayed until ajudge resolves the
motion. A defendant who loses the mo-
tion to dismiss has the nght to an im-
mediate appeal, and a claim dismissed
ofl the motion must be dismissed with
prejudice.
On November 25, 2009, the Nevada
(See SLAPP, Page 7)
lasvegastribune.csrn Distributed by Strip Advertising
,'.T,,T:::X ;:il'J:1ffi-iiT:
ffi inadvertentiy print something tlial
ffi:J';;:::i:,T:;::*:n:
ffi
I3ffiT:::#,y;$i:iX.:tffiJ#- ffi
:,'"TI;::,"?#:::#:ll?;#Jl
ffi' KffiWreffi
"l may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death
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
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 law-
suit against them aises from their pro-
tected speech or petitioning activity. The
plaintiffmust then demonstraie that his/
her claim is both legally sufficient and
Disrbt Court Judge Daaglat Hemdoit