After filing a complaint of allegations of cover-up of fraud, officials wrongly punished and continue sanctions against a self-represented woman litigant seeking redress.
Part One of a series
Victoria Giampa has spent almost 10 years seeking justice from Nevada courts for fraudulent filings submitted by her ex-husband, his attorney and his law firm in a child custody case. Yet Nevada judicial officials responded and retaliated with punitive damages against her after she spoke out and exposed official fraud.
From 2004 to 2009, she was sanctioned over $15,000 on five separate occasions for filing contempt motions that her children’s welfare was at risk and their education in jeopardy while living alone in the Country Club Towers — threats that she believes were meant to silence her.
In 2010 she would suffer the imposition of sanctions again after filing her first civil rights complaint in state court. The court’s latest decision on April 2, 2013, suffered at the hands of the Nevada judiciary and lawyers who deliberately interfered with parenting her two minor children, was another disappointment in a series of setbacks in this mother’s long and frustrating quest for justice.
The new case, Victoria Giampa v. Bryce Duckworth, et al., filed in Nevada federal court in June 2012, centers around one of the most egregious examples of the court effectively slamming the courthouse door. The suit seeks answer to whether in a continuing violation she was deprived access to the court to seek redress for grievances for interference with her parent-child relationship and whether she was deprived equal protection of the law representing herself as a self-represented person and unlawfully punished.
Ms. Giampa complains that the judges and lawyers treated her unfairly as a self-represented litigant, while others who were represented by attorneys were afforded preferential treatment.
She contends that they retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity, including manipulating court orders to declare her vexatious, which chilled her exercise to seek redress for grievances soon after filing a civil rights lawsuit in state court violating her right to due process.
The lawsuit also alleged that the defendants, acting under color of law, waged a vindictive campaign against her for exposing judicial corruption on distorted and fabricated allegations that she is vexatious and urged the court to sanction her based on those unfounded allegations, which they knew or should have known did not constitute a finding of litigiousness.
Unresolved issues she cited were a disqualification of Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, a default against her ex-husband Charles for failing to answer the complaint, and Dr. Louis Mortillaro’s failure to properly serve his Joinder to Motion to Dismiss.
“This was another abusive tactic used by his attorney, Albert Massi. The Docket Sheet reflects that no certificate of service was mailed to me, leaving open the question of a default against his client,” stated Ms. Giampa.
The affidavit to disqualify the judge emphasized that a reasonable person would find Judge Ferenbach biased and prejudiced against Ms. Giampa and would side with the defendants in that the court has formed opinions through extra-judicial sources that self-represented persons who have exposed judicial fraud upon the court do not have valid grievances and should be declared vexatious.
With deep sadness and frustration in her voice, Victoria Giampa said, “Ferenbach improperly relied on other actual rulings in other cases, specifically Judge Sandra Pomrenze’s order which deprived me of notice and a hearing when he also declared me vexatious.”
Ms. Giampa feels this is troubling because rubber-stamping other judges’ decisions is a continuing pattern of discrimination, and accepting arguments of the defendants to protect officials is interfering with her federal right to seek redress.
Ms. Giampa is not asking the federal court to overturn the child custody ruling issued by a family court judge nor to vacate a judgment issued by a state court judge, which deprived her of seeking damages in interfering with her parental rights and custody. She complains of legal injuries caused by defendants’ unified fraudulent actions in state court and that the alleged conspiracy to obstruct justice and deprive her of her substantive constitutional right of seeking redress for grievances was actually carried out.
Next week: The County’s Connection – Victoria Giampa complained to numerous Clark County officials that the clerk of the court delayed scanning and filing her documents in order for the defendants to file a vexatious motion just seconds before filing an order from a June 2010 hearing. According to court filings, the County officials maneuvered and sidestepped their responsibilities in addressing procedural issues of filing documents and directed her to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline and to the State Bar of Nevada.