Listed: Nov 20, 1997 Case Number: W97-504 Case Filed: 9-15-97
My name is Richard Garganta. I have first hand knowledge of a case in Wash. County Superior Court titled Garganta v Mobile Village et al. The presiding Judge is Justice Thunberg. During these proceedings the following wrongdoing occurred:
In a hearing on 11-17-97 Justice Thunberg willfully denied me (Pro Se Litigant) the right of redress, due process, and trial by jury by dismissing my case with prejudice [meaning I can't bring it back in any form]. This was a civil complaint for damages, one of the assertions being extortion. Justice Thunberg did this prior to any discovery, prior adjudication of the issue or knowledge of the details of my assertion. I was told to "call the police." Any attempts to get this rectified resulted in dead ends.
Take note: According to the Rhode Island Supreme Court the criminal justice system has the "option" of prosecuting. According to the recent unpublished decision Livermore v Attorney General and the Coventry Police, local police don't have to arrest when made aware of a crime. If they don't arrest and you pursue it, the Rhode Island courts will quickly dismiss your case citing cases like Lynda v Richards which states a Citizen has no interest in the criminal prosecution of another. If they do prosecute and damages aren't considered or plea bargained away, tough for the aggrieved.RIGL § 9-1-2 Civil liability for crimes and offenses. - Whenever any person shall suffer any injury to his person, reputation or estate, by reason of the commission of any crime or offense, he may recover his damages for such injury in a civil action against the offender, and it shall not be any defense to such action that no criminal complaint for such crime or offense has been made; and whenever any person shall be guilty of larceny, he shall be liable to the owner of the money or articles taken for twice the value thereof, unless the same be restored, and for the value thereof in case of restoration.
Clearly Justice Melanie Thunberg does not follow the law. She dismissed a CIVIL action using case law that defined a CRIMINAL action. Rhode Island judges are famous for this "elastic band logic" when it comes to protecting the status quo and trampling on Citizens trying to exercise their Constitutional right of redress. What about the Constitution and the right to trial by jury?
Summary: If one Citizen commits an illegal act against another, the police and attorney general can refuse to prosecute. Couple this with the fact Rhode Island judges make it impossible for you to proceed with a civil action. The result? We are no longer a country of laws, we are a country where laws are "creatively interpreted."
Read this reversal from the RI Supreme court in the Motyka case where Justice Thunberg did not provide applicant with an opportunity "to be heard on whether any arguable basis exists to proceed with the application" for post-conviction relief after the filing of a two-page no-merit memorandum by appointed counsel in accordance with Shatney, 755 A.2d at 136. See also cases that cited Shatney
A litigant heard this conversation between a Lawyer who is in Judge Melanie Thunberg's courtroom regularly speaking to a Lawyer unfamiliar with Judge Thunberg. "You have to understand something about Judge Thunberg. She does not review any cases before court. 99% of the time she does not have a clue what you are talking about. You must keep that in mind when arguing your case."
A Pro Se Litigant's opinion after several experiences with Judge Thunberg: Judge Melanie Thunberg protects the status quo, even at the expense of Civil Rights. She has a pleasant disposition and shows considerable patience when hearing arguments.....from Lawyers. She appears to respect the Lawyer's position and the job they have to do. She does NOT appear to view Pro Se litigants in the same manner. She appears comfortable so long as the Pro Se litigant appears lost or confused. She quickly appears disarmed when a Pro Se litigant has good arguments. She appears to prefer ruling against a Pro Se in favor of a bar member regardless of the facts or the law. In several decisions dealing with Pro se litigants, Judge Thunberg's decision is clearly designed to rid herself of the Pro se litigant.