This nanny will not be bullied — not by a cop, prosecutor, or an ex-judge.

First Vanessa Rivas, 23, caught her boss — politically-connected Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Lauren Angelo Seltzer — operating a hidden spycam in the bathroom where she regularly changed and showered in January 2018, according to court papers.

When the quick-thinking nanny snatched the memory card and filed a police report for unlawful surveillance against Seltzer, the prosecutor leaned on her with every pillar of law enforcement she could muster, Rivas told The Post.

But the young nanny refused to back down.

The prosecutor called in the NYPD, and the next day two uniformed cops from the 13th Precinct confronted Rivas and threatened to arrest her if she didn’t hand over the memory card, the nanny recalled.

Rivas called their bluff and refused. The officers let her go.

About a week later, Rivas claims, former Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Eileen Koretz, Seltzer’s mom, phoned Rivas. She made no threats but offered Rivas a vague promise of the pay she lost out on after the camera confrontation — if she signed a written agreement to “end this,” according to an audio recording of the call provided to the Post.

Again, the nanny refused, instead choosing to fight for justice — and answers about the extent of the spying.

‘It shouldn’t be allowed — for someone to do something like this — and people taking advantage of their … their connections.’

But justice has not been swift. Despite Rivas’ complaint landing on the desks of both the Manhattan and Brooklyn district attorneys, neither has brought charges.

It is legal to video-record someone in common areas of your home without their consent, but you cannot spy on them in areas where they have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” such as a bathroom. Such “unlawful surveillance” is a felony and carries up to a seven-year prison sentence.

“It shouldn’t be allowed — for someone to do something like this — and people taking advantage of their position, their power, their connections,” Rivas told the Post in an exclusive interview. “That’s what I don’t like.”

After watching law enforcement dawdle on her case for a year, Rivas took legal action into her own hands — filing an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit in Manhattan Supreme Court on Jan. 11, seeking unspecified damages.

Rivas had been watching the Seltzers’ three children four days a week for a year at their Stuy Town apartment when she made the alarming discovery in their guest bathroom on Jan. 18, 2018. As she was preparing to undress and shower, she saw a black device resembling an iPhone charger plugged into an outlet above the sink.

“I noticed a glare, and I was just like, wait this is odd, so I pulled it out of the socket, and the last video is me looking at it like, ‘What is this?’” Rivas said.

The camera was pointed directly at the spot where Rivas had been undressing weekly for months. The couple agreed to let her shower at their apartment after she took their children to swim class once a week.

“I felt humiliated. … I showered there multiple times; it was my second semester of swimming,” Rivas said. “It hurt. I felt betrayed.”

When she confronted Seltzer, she denied knowing about the device — though Rivas said she saw surveillance camera boxes in their apartment on two occasions in the past.

“She immediately was like ‘What camera?’ and became super hostile and defensive,” Rivas said. “She just kept defending herself saying she ‘never put it there, we love you, we don’t want you to go, we would never put that there.’”

Rivas quickly left the flat. Seltzer and her husband Matthew Seltzer began frantically reaching out to the nanny, calling her 45 times and sending her 36 text messages — almost all focused on getting the memory card back.

“Matt and I would never ever, ever do this and I have no idea how or why you would think we would, so we need that chip,” Seltzer wrote in one message viewed by The Post. “I want to think that one of the workers left it here by mistake.”

The prosecutor even offered to put one of her own investigators on the mystery.

The next day, on Jan. 19, when Rivas and her mother went to drop off the Seltzers’ keys, the NYPD officers showed up at the apartment as if they were on standby for her arrival, Rivas said.

“She’s just like ‘Give me the chip. We’re going to take care of it.’ And I was just like, ‘I’m not going to give you the only piece of evidence I have,’” Rivas said she told the officer, adding that she wanted to hand the chip in at the precinct.

The cop said, “I can arrest you for stolen property,” according to Rivas. “I said ‘You know what? Arrest me.’

“Then at that point, he looked at her like, ‘Oh, she called our bluff.’”

Rivas went straight to the 13th Precinct stationhouse, where she turned in the chip and filed a criminal complaint against Seltzer for unlawful surveillance. But not before she downloaded a day’s worth of footage, which indicates the camera was installed 15 minutes before she arrived for her shift, when only Seltzer and her three kids were in the home, Rivas said.

About a week later, 13th Precinct detectives informed Rivas that Seltzer filed her own complaint.

The detective asked her: “‘Are you going to pull your report?’ And I’m like, ‘No why would I do that?” Rivas said. Then the detective urged the nanny to return the judge’s phone call.

Seltzer later dropped her complaint.

After the former judge made her offer, Rivas told the jurist, “I just can’t let something like this go. I don’t know whose intentions they were, what the intentions were. I don’t know how many videos there are of me,” according to an audio recording.

Seltzer’s family is well-connected in Manhattan political circles. Koretz served on the state’s ethics commission from 2015-2017 and married the former trial bureau chief for the Bronx County District Attorney’s office, Joseph Giampaolo, in a 1999 ceremony officiated by then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Rivas’ case was transferred to the Brooklyn DA’s office so there “would be no appearance of a conflict of interest,” according to a spokeswoman for the Manhattan DA’s office, Emily Tuttle.

The case is “under an active investigation,” Brooklyn DA spokesman Oren Yaniv said.

But Rivas’ attorneys, Nina Ovrutsky and Vincent White of White, Hilferty and Albanese — who have represented other nannies wrongfully recorded by families — say the slow pace is unacceptable.

“There are a lot of Peeping Toms in the world,” White said. “The issue here is not only is there a Peeping Tom involved, but there is an abuse of power, which we find more concerning than the average pervert, frankly.”

Seltzer makes $92,000 a year in the Manhattan DA’s office; she was records access officer for the office as recently as 2015.

Her attorney, Marvin Raskin, told the Post she “denies any wrongdoing. There will be no further comment as there is a pending case.”

Rivas said she hasn’t babysat since. She now works as an executive assistant at a Manhattan tech firm.

“I’m no longer a nanny. It’s been really rough after that, and to be in someone’s home again, I’d feel uncomfortable,” Rivas said. “The next nanny, I hope, doesn’t go through the same thing.”