AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff comes before this court to seek damages for “violations of rights” protected under VAWA Act of 1994, and VAWA 24 C.F.R. § 5.2005 rights to privacy.
Secondly, Plaintiff comes before this court to seek damages for “violations of human rights” protected under discrimination for people with disabilities, covered under the “Fair Housing Act 2023”, and discriminations protected under “Americans with Disabilities Act 2023”.
Third, Plaintiff comes before this court to seeking damages for “violations of rights” protected under 740 ILCS 145 Slander and Libel Act, the elements of a defamation claim are: (1) a false statement about the plaintiff (2) made to a third party (sometimes referred to by courts as publication) (3) that harms the plaintiff's reputation.
Finally, Plaintiff comes before this court to seek damages for “violations of rights” protected under 735 ILCS 5/13-201 Defamation and Violations of Privacy. Actions for slander, libel or for publication of matter violating the right of privacy, shall be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued.
JURISDICTION
The Court finds that venue is proper in Cook County, Illinois under Section 2-101 and 2-102 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.
BACKGROUND
Here comes Chyvette A. Valentine, hereby referred to as (“Plaintiff”) a multicultural minority entrepreneur, business owner and mother of (4). Born and raised in Chicago politics by her grandmother Deborah Barbara Jamison Valentine, who had strong political influences from Washington DC to California and beyond. In her own right she has accommodations from Presidents Bush (2006) and Obama (2008). She began her political career under the mentorship of Congresswoman Cardiss Collins (1976). She began her educational studies under Marva Collins who built a school funded by entertainer Prince (1975), Westside Preparatory School, and has been “privilege” to higher education all of her life. She furthers her community advocacy under the leadership of Alderman Bill Henry, where she has served the community since a child (1976). Among her many accomplishments Plaintiff is a double major: Civil Rights Law, and Business Administration; and double minor: Hospitality Management and Culinary Arts.
Plaintiff has been a personal and professional acquaintance of Danny Davis for over 45 years. He worked as a clerk for Cook County, when Debbie Jamison Valentine (Plaintiffs grandmother) worked as campaign manager for Jesse Jackson Presidential campaign in 1984.Out of respect and adoration for his role as Congressman, and the close connection (ties) to Plaintiff family, she (Plaintiff) affectionately refers to him as “Uncle Danny”.
In 2008 Plaintiff returned to Chicago with her children, in an effort to establish paternity and pursue her education and career opportunities.
2 weeks after premiering her children at Danny Davis “Taste of Austin Parade” her children were “illegally seized” by DCFS, citing “mental illness”. See Valentine vs DCFS 1:2010cv04751.Said slanderous rumors and/or lies “originated” from the staff of Congressman Danny K Davis, to conceal the identity of Plaintiff son Devonte Pippen, son of Chicago Bulls Player Scottie Pippen sees Valentine vs Pippen 2024L002166. “Using his celebrity status working with local, state, federal employees namely Congressman Danny K Davis, Lori Lightfoot, Chicago Housing Authority and various other leaders, Pippen sabotages/falsifies records with intent of causing long term damage and/or harm”. Said defamation and slander were so extreme.
Plaintiff lost custody of her children for over 4 years, with no founded issues other than differences of opinions based on religious and/or political views. In 2011 Plaintiff children were returned into her care with no found abuse, neglect and/or mental illness.
On January 19, 2012, Plaintiff's son Devonte Pippen, son of Scottie Pippen of the Chicago Bulls, was murdered. Pippen was never called into accountability as a result of assistance, and/or working in collusion with the staff of Danny Davis, and his staff who abused authority, power, and access to justify claims in an attempt to discredit Plaintiff; in exchange for monetary gift and donations to his campaign, trips, tickets and other gifts granted to Danny Davis and his staff, see Valentine vs Pippen 2024L002166.
In 2015 when Plaintiff pursued a seat for the 7th Ward Alderman Danny Davis was a key endorsement for her campaign. As a product of the Westside of Chicago, Plaintiff has often volunteered her time over the years, to the appointment to Congressman Davis (voter registration events, social events, networking). Due to conflicting political views and/or opinions.
Plaintiff no longer partakes in events with the Congressman and has endorsed another candidate in his position. When Plaintiff asserts opposition to views and/or opinions that contradict the Congressman, she is profiled as “mentally ill” and/or unstable. There is no documentation to support such claims. Plaintiff has also “made political connections” for the Congressman utilizing her political affiliations to excel his political career (i.e. Meeting with Trump and others).
On May 14, 2016, Plaintiff relocated out of Chicago in an attempt to regain her mental stability, recreate herself, and put her past behind her. The “only contact(s)” Plaintiff maintained regular communications with away from Chicago via direct cellphone was Danny Davis 773-350-6088 and his staffer Gerard Moorer 773-597-5951 or via email (gerard.moorer@mail.house.gov). Danny Davis asked Plaintiff to list him as “emergency contact” and or “reference for employment if needed”. From 2016-2020 every out of state application for housing, employment and state identification registration “Danny Davis” is named point of emergency contact 773-350-6088. This includes Pima County Arizona, Clark County, Nevada, and Los Angeles County, California. VIDEO: https://youtu.be/5mSf0XGmvWA?si=8s9tSkyuU3OLAqNq
Congressman Davis and his staff, have intimate details, and comprehensive reports relating to stalking, harassment and torrential threatening behavior by Scottie Pippen since 1994; the illegal seizure of her children (to which he colluded), the murder of her son, and the abusive she has endured over 30 years. The Congressman has positioned himself as an advocate for VAWA without understanding the laws as it applies to Plaintiff.
On August 8, 2020, after 4 years of ongoing stalking harassment, threats and displacement, Plaintiff returned to Chicago, and was advised to file a Violence Against Women (“VAWA”) form 5382 complaint in the office of Danny Davis. Said complaint was relating to and/or regarding domestic violence, stalking and death threats from Scottie Pippen; who had followed her during her travels unbeknown to her, due to information provided by Danny Davis and his staff.
HISTORY AND RELEVANT FACTS
On May 21, 2021 Plaintiff personally met with, and completed said VAWA form in the presence of, and guidance of Congressman Danny K. Davis who accepted said information in the formal capacity of his role as Congressman, any/all information shared should have been private, confidential, and handled with discretion; this information was disseminated through his office among his staff. The week of May 22, 2021, said documents were transferred by Raymond Gye, Congressman Davis housing constituent service representative who forwarded said file to Cheryl Burns of the Chicago Housing Authority for processing. Cheryl Burns assigned file to Shalisa Harvey in housing services.
On June 8, 2021, after a conference call with Lawrence Woods of Chicago Legal Aid, Plaintiff received a written response citing, Legal Aid would not consider representation unless Plaintiff would consider a “mental evaluation”. This was based in part or in whole, on information provided by Congressman Danny Davis. Plaintiff was later banned from any legal help, from any legal aid agency in Cook County. Plaintiff comes before this court to seek damages for “violations of rights” protected under 740 ILCS 145 Slander and Libel Act. From November 2022 to May 2023, Plaintiffs were denied rental assistance from (3) three agencies. Congressman Davis was included in each email relating to delays and/or refusals to fund assistance. Plaintiffs were delayed (6) months, suggesting to any/all agencies to delay/deny services to Plaintiff, while “pretending to advocate on her behalf”.
On August 8, 2021, Plaintiff was hired as an independent contractor security escort for Judicial Candidate Deidra Baumann, after one appearance and while bidding for long term employment, said client (Baumann) was contacted by the staff Congressman, who suggested “she find replacement staff, and advised her against working with Plaintiff”.
Plaintiff comes before this court to seek damages for “violations of rights” protected under 740 ILCS 145 Slander and Libel Act. This “unwelcomed and unwanted” involvement and/or interference have caused a loss of revenue, career opportunities and forces Plaintiff to seek employment out of state to maintain a stable lifestyle. The Congressman does not pay the bills and is not financially responsible for the Plaintiff.
On September 9, 2022, Plaintiffs lost her housing benefits which should have been protected under the VAWA Act. Based on “slanderous lies” of mental illness, in addition to “false threats”, justified by those who support the opinions, views and dysfunction of the office of Congressman Danny Davis; an email that was intended to report Plaintiff as a victim of stalking was misinterpreted as a threat. Plaintiff was documenting and/or reporting gun activity, stalking, harassment and/or torrent threats of imminent danger. Said email contained the name of multiple members of the staff including and not limited to Raymond Gye (raymond.gye@mail.house.gov), Tumia Romero (tumia.romero@mail.house.gov), Gerard Moorer (gerard.moorer@mail.house.gov ) staffers from Congressman Davis's office who should have reported said activities. Who as representatives of a Congressional member had an ultimate responsibility to report domestic violence and abuses, they did not. VAWA participants are protected from termination and eviction(s).
Plaintiff’s rights were not property protected and/or represented. In addition, Congressman Danny K Davis abused his access to this information to “encourage” said termination, by obstructing legal counsel and/or advice, and by encouraging termination with his biased personal views of Plaintiff. Plaintiff comes before this court to seek damages for “violations of rights” protected under VAWA Act of 1994, and VAWA 24 C.F.R. § 5.2005 rights to privacy
On December 25, 2022, Plaintiff received a call from “Wallace Gator Bradley” who stated:
“You know Congressman Davis told everybody you are a “mental case” and that you are “crazy as hell”, then proceeded to send an email which reads: “Everyone you have on this email know that your hate for Pippen and your way of taking pictures with people under false pretenses and then giving the impression like it’s something else and I’m sure the Media has already Googled you and frivolous cases you’ve filed against Him along with your Social Media pages because I did, you are all over the place it’s well documented.” Plaintiff comes before this court to seek damages for “violations of rights” protected under 740 ILCS 145 Slander and Libel Act.
On January 23, 2023, while seeking referrals for legal advice Plaintiff was misguided by Danny Davis who referred her to lawyers, he knew had no knowledge and/or expertise in the areas of law needed. In response Lawrence Woods who refused legal advice (services) then banned Plaintiff from seeking legal advice and/or guidance has hindered her ability to remedy any/all issues legally, being profiled as “mentally ill” reports that originated from the staff and/or offices of Congressman Danny K Davis. VIDEO: https://youtu.be/TIz091grNRw?si=quclfY-HP4Wi7oOM
On February 25, 2023, Danny Davis sent communication in a box containing Ken Bedford (ABC News), Supreme Captain Mustapha Farrakhan, and an unknown number. Danny Davis is known for building relationships with people he anticipates will/can be used to discredit and to promote his agendas. In this effort, not fully understanding the connection with Plaintiff and Supreme Captain Mustapha Farrakhan, he embarrassed himself thinking that would silence (influence) Plaintiff’s thinking, and/or opinions.
On April 13, 2023, during a follow up office visit to Congressman Danny K Davis office, Plaintiff was met by hostile staff, which was confrontational and immediately began to assault and verbally attacks against Plaintiff while waiting for the Congressman to arrive. A volunteer who often works for the Congressman named “Clayton”, aggressively approached Plaintiff in a threatening manner as if he was about to “physically attack her”. Given the Congressman’s assumed position on VAWA, knowing the Plaintiff history of domestic violence, and abuse with Scottie Pippen, this activity made Plaintiff “extreme uncomfortable”, and she departed in “concern for her safety”. VIDEO: https://youtu.be/e7mZSYRaTiM?si=W-YNszo179au4yMe
On June 21, 2023, during an Order of Protection hearing with Shalisa Harvey of CHA, she attests that she was told Plaintiff is “problematic” and had “a history of “mental illness”, shared and communicated by Raymond Gye when sharing file(s) with CHA staff. The act(s) and/or actions of the Congressman and his staff directly violate the rights protected and seek damages for rights that were violated and protected by discrimination for people with disabilities, covered under the “Fair Housing Act”. This information caused Plaintiff to be “profiled” as “mentally ill”, which is a form of discrimination based on a disability. Said statements were slanderous, biased and untrue. Furthermore, this is a violation of privacy, confidentiality, and violated rights protected under the VAWA Act of 1994. This staff not only handled Plaintiff files (documentation) with reckless abandonment, but there was also no priority for confidentiality and/or concern for her safety and wellbeing. Plaintiff comes before this court to seek damages for “violations of rights” protected under 740 ILCS 145 Slander and Libel Act
On July 13, 2023, while attempting to re-establish her political connections, Plaintiff volunteered promoting a celebration of Jesse Jackson and his accomplishments at Operation PUSH. During the ceremony Congressman Davis himself made numerous negative statements relating to Plaintiff mental wellbeing and speaking in “negative and derogatory” ways in relation to Plaintiff to guest. This included and is not limited to Jesse Jackson, Rev James Meeks, Rev Marshall Hatch and Rev Ira Acree.
Plaintiff is not certain what the Congressman’s religions thinking and/or belief are, but for him to insert his objective thinking he has an opinion on plaintiff faith, is beyond his control. His overbearing and obsessive behavior is intolerable to say the least. Congressman Danny K Davis himself has delegated
himself as a spokesperson for Plaintiff and he is not. Promoting himself to be “more relevant than he truly is” he adopts opinions and thoughts from Plaintiff then claims them as his own. Overstepping his authority and presenting himself to be more relevant in Plaintiff life, he misrepresents himself as a “family friend” when he uses his access to control the opinions, and narratives abusing is elected authority as a platform for expertise. Danny Davis does not have any legal guardianship and/or authority to represent Plaintiff on any level personally and/or professionally.
Plaintiff comes before this court to seek damages for “violations of rights” protected under 740 ILCS 145 Slander and Libel Act, 735 ILCS 5/13-201 Defamation and Violations of Privacy. From August 2020 (return to Chicago) to present, Plaintiff has been the target of harassment, stalking, death threats, physical, mental, emotional duress, because of misinformation, slander, and lies that are being spread “directly from the staff of Congressman Danny K Davis and his staff”. Plaintiff comes before this court to seek damages for “violations of rights” protected under 740 ILCS 145 Slander and Libel Act, 735 ILCS 5/13-201 Defamation and Violations of Privacy. Without medical records which are privately protected by HIPPA, and/or documentation of any mental illness, Congressman Danny K Davis and his staff have made statements that have hindered employment opportunities, damaged her name and credibility in the community, and ultimately caused her the loss of her “Housing Choice Voucher” with the Chicago Housing Authority. This was a violation of Plaintiff's right to privacy and confidentiality; in addition, the office overstepped their authority making their access to files and/or information an ethical question of integrity. Without written consent, Congressman Davis has delegated himself as a caregiver, when he is merely a family associate, who manipulated Plaintiff trust, and confidence for access to promote himself for personal advancement(s) and/or political power and gains.
In fact, each report of mental illness while out of state, where reported by Congressman Danny Davis who abused his access to profile Plaintiff with intent of forcing her to return to Chicago, where he could control her activities and career. “At times Plaintiff felt as if the Congressman was her pimp, rather than a concerned family associate”. Abusing his access, the Congressman used his access to have Plaintiff detained out of state, using himself as point of contact, to force Plaintiff to return to Chicago. This is documented with Banner Hospital (Tucson, Arizona) May 23, 2017, Spring Mountain Treatment Center
(Las Vegas, NV) March 20, 2018. Plaintiff has been proven and documented as having “no mental illness and requires no psychotropic drug treatments” these are tactics to distract and illegally detain Plaintiff, while under the Congressman’s control.
Plaintiff lost her housing on September 9th, 2023, in part, whole or mainly because of act(s)/actions of the staff of Congressman Danny K Davis office. Said defamation of character, and slander perpetuated from the office of Congressman Danny K Davis, and his staff; the abuse of authority and public access to private information and/or data are the primary source of discrimination, misinformation and confusion within the courts, community, and in Plaintiffs private life, as will be outline in this complaint. After filing said claim, Plaintiff has been the target of countless threats, harassment, and eviction which was enforced on February 26, 2024, the day before the initial hearing. Plaintiff has been subject to relentless torment and harassment, adding to the issues of abuse, stalking and/or harassment, while presenting himself as an advocate for rights of women who suffer and/or live with abuse.
On October 7, 2023, Plaintiff received a call from Gerard Moorer staffer from Congressman Danny K Davis, who attended an event with Ervin Magic Johnson. It is reported that Congressman Davis in exchange for monetary gift and favor, used his influence in Cook County Court to dismiss and or deny filing of case(s) vs Magic Johnson for his participation of tracking, stalking and/or harassment of Plaintiff while living homeless living in a car in Los Angeles. See Valentine v Johnson 2021l11782. A fact that was included in JB Pritzker's State of Address February 2024. Further exploiting Plaintiff circumstances as a victim of domestic violence, and the treatment(s) endured from political figures who abuse access for power and/or position.
Generally, a member or employee of Congress may accept a gift only if it is unsolicited and the:
· A gift is not from a registered lobbyist or foreign agent, or an entity that employs or retains a registered lobbyist or foreign agent, unless a specific exception to the Gifts Rule applies.
· Gift is valued at less than $50;
· Aggregate value of gifts from one source in a calendar year is less than $100, though no gifts with a value below $10 count toward the $100 annual limit;
· A gift is not cash or a cash equivalent (e.g. stocks and bonds). The only exceptions are gifts made by relatives and parts of an inheritance;
· Gift is not offered under circumstances that might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of their governmental duties;
· Tickets to sporting and entertainment events must be valued at face value, or the highest cost if there is no face value and cannot be artificially lowered to meet the gift.
On December 8, 2023, Plaintiffs contacted the office of Congressman Davis to speak to Raymond Gye relating to issues with Plaintiff current dwelling. Raymond Gye, Constituent Services Representative who abuses his access and authority has failed to provide services to which taxpayer dollars are designated. (No response to 8-month bedbug infestation as of 12/26/2023). Constituent Services Representative: Handles constituent casework; meets with constituents; contacts agencies and research cases; notifies constituents of case resolution.
This staff uses information collected to slander the name of Plaintiff, but they cannot perform duties they are collecting taxpayer’s dollars to perform; then they abuse authority to make threats of arrest, filing false police reports, and/or by forcing mental hospitalizations for control without justification. Damaging the reputation, and character of Plaintiff, this is an outright abuse of authority!
December 9, 2023, Plaintiff stopped at the office of Congressman Davis on a follow up visit to a legal referral. During the visit, staffer Josie Ware came out of her office and started scolding and reprimanding Plaintiff like a child ordering her to cease taking photos and demanding she leave. After a 3-minute verbal confrontation Josie grabbed the phone but grabbed the hand of Plaintiff resulting in a police report for battery. This staff openly abuses their access to information that should be classified as confidential; however, this staff exhorts their authority abusing information (data) in their access. VIDEO: https://youtu.be/7z8XMWPkH_k?si=UEpWkEzgLC8Wim_Q
Staff has obstructed Plaintiffs ability to speak and/or communicate with Congressman Davis relating to “legitimate” issues and/or constituent concerns. His staff are seemingly aware of all details of Plaintiff case(s), issues and or concerns, yet no results are produced. Plaintiff has suffered “irreversible damage” to her character, reputation and credibility as there are implications and/or slanderous lies being circulated that Plaintiff, and the Congressman are sexually entangled. For the sake of clarification, there is no” intimate relationship”, and/or” sexual connection” between the Congressman and any of his staff, although Plaintiff is often “the subject of “sexual harassment” (advancements) and slander with employees of this staff”.
Week of December 18, 2023, an unnamed confidential source advises that Congressman Davis was contacted for a work reference by the office of Melissa Ervin for Congress, who “considered” hiring Plaintiff in a staffer capacity. It is reported that the Congressman has made “negative comments and/or gave negative reviews” notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff is his “featured campaign volunteer” to draw attention for events for his reelection efforts. Such slanderous statements and comments suppress Plaintiffs ability to excel and grow personally and professionally, in Chicago where the Congressman has so much power and influence.
On January 26, 2024 Counsel for the Congressman filed appearances into this matter, Brooks M Hanner (brooks.hanner@mail.house.gov) Matthew B. Berry (matthew.berry@mail.house.gov), Todd Barry Tatelman (todd.tatelman@mail.house.gov). The Congressman's legal team were given ample time to respond and answer to all claims in a timely manner yet elected to defer until after the election to respond, asserting the Congressman abused his access for the purpose of exploiting Plaintiffs personal issues for political purpose(s).Untimely responses filed after a ruling has been entered, only shows how the Congressman abuses his power and/or authority, notwithstanding his involvement, fundraising, and activities securing his role are in part because of Plaintiffs relationship with Scottie Pippen, which the Congressman and his staff exploit for personal favor(s) and/or gain(s).
On Feburary26, 2024, the day before this matter was scheduled to be heard, Plaintiff was illegally removed from her home, in hopes she would fail to appear for this case. In addition, since filing this claim Plaintiff has been ousted from the city of Chicago, where she was refused shelter services, homeless resources, emergency services and was forced to relocate out of state to find a haven for refuge. Plaintiff has been attacked physically, she has been spat upon, while attempting to depart Chicago her personal luggage was stolen containing all of her identification, personal items and such, and has sought Chicago Police Assistance in all matters with no resolve.
February 27, 2024, The Congressman, his staff and legal failed to appear, and/or respond. Said matter was continued to March 18, 2023.
March 5, 2024, Plaintiff was attacked outside of The Freehand Hotel at 19 E Ohio, a police report was filed, this attack was not random.
March 6, 2024, Plaintiff was attacked walking in community, near The Freehand Hotel.
March 18, 2024, The Congressman, his staff and legal failed to appear, and/or respond. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend complaint to $5 million based on the high-profile exploitation of Plaintiff as a VAWA victim, and survivor of domestic violence for over 30 years.
On March 22, 2024, legal counsel for the Congressman filed a Motion to Dismiss; after winning the nomination for the 7th Congressional District, and 4 days after scheduled hearing on March 18, 2024. This is the “abuse of power and/or authority that Plaintiff discusses in said claim. Notwithstanding the fact the Congressman is an elected official to serve the people who voted him into his elected position, this office (staff) failure to comply with this court's instructions, and/or the merits of this claim, are an example of how the Congressman seemingly believes he is “above the law” and has special privilege, as a result of his appointment. Failing to acknowledge the faults, misconduct and actions of his staff, that have caused irreversible harm to Plaintiff personal and professional reputation, career, and name.
Abusing his authority, access and powers as a congressman, his staff have abused access to manipulate, misrepresent and slander the name, reputation and legacy of Plaintiff, and the memory of her deceased grandmother. As a result, Plaintiff is being “forced to relocate out of Chicago”, in fear for her safety, and well-being. The Congressman often over exaggerates his influence and affiliation for personal and professional advancement and/or gains. He has no authority to act outside of his elected duties as a congressman.
There is no conservatorship and or guardianship that would allow him, or his staff to make decisions related to and/or regarding Plaintiff mental well-being, his staff is abusing access, information and/or authority to abuse power and access to Plaintiff to the detriment and her children (family).
Plaintiff is now forced to relocate out of state, where she can find a safe refuge away from political views, and/or NBA fans who seemingly attack and/or stalk Plaintiff. For safety and security reasons, Plaintiff seeks to secure housing in a remote location in the South, where she will not be targeted and/or profiled for political gains, and/or reasons.
With legal counsel retained, the Congressman could have arranged for his legal team to appear on his behalf, however given how he has exploited and exposed the 30-year stalking and abuse case for personal gains.
ARGUEMENT
In 2006, Congress reauthorized VAWA and established new housing provisions within the Housing Act of 1937 that cover any victim of domestic violence who resides in Section 8 housing. Under these provisions, "[a]n incident or incidents of actual or threatened domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking will not be construed as a serious or repeated violation of the lease by the victim or threatened victim of that violence and shall not be good cause for terminating the assistance, tenancy, or occupancy rights of the victim of such violence.". Meister v. Kansas City Case No. 09-2544-EFM (D. Kan. Feb. 25, 2011). The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA, 34 U.S.C. § 12471 et seq.) provides housing protections for survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and/or stalking (collectively referred to on this page as “VAWA violence/abuse”).[1] (See 34 U.S.C. § 12291). Despite the name of the law, VAWA’s protections apply regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity (See 24 C.F.R. § 5.2001).
Plaintiff comes before this court to seek damages for “violations of rights” protected under 740 ILCS 145 Slander and Libel Act, 735 ILCS 5/13-201 Defamation and Violations of Privacy. Plaintiff contends the dissemination of this information was prohibited by 28 C.F.R. §§ 20.01-20.38, and violated the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and his constitutional rights (id. at 15, 19). Study v. U.S. Case No. 3:08cv493/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. Jul. 24, 2009). Plaintiff files this action against various defendants, seeking damages for injuries sustained in violation of: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1985; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1986; (3) the Violence Against Women Act, 42 U.S.C. § 13981 ("VAWA"); and (4) various state law claims including sexual discrimination and sexual harassment. Mattison v. Click Corporation of America Inc. Civil Action No. 97-CV-2736 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 1998).
Plaintiff comes before this court to seek damages relief for “violations of human rights” protected under discrimination for people with disabilities, covered under the “Fair Housing Act 2023”. The
plaintiff must plead "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit under the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of housing. In her initial complaint, she alleged that HACSA violated her civil rights, "disabilities rights," and contract rights.
Plaintiff comes before this court to seeking damages for “violations of rights” protected under 740 ILCS 145 Slander and Libel Act, the elements of a defamation claim are: (1) a false statement about the plaintiff (2) made to a third party (sometimes referred to by courts as publication) (3) that harms the plaintiff's reputation.
Plaintiff argues that fact issues exist as to whether Congressman's (staff) actions, and activities, comment is slanderous per se.
Defamation is a false statement about a plaintiff published to a third person without legal excuse which damages the plaintiff's reputation. Doe v. Mobile Video Tapes, Inc., 43 S.W.3d 40, 48 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). Libel is defamation in written or other graphic form. TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Vernon 1997); Doe, 43 S.W.3d at 48. Slander is orally communicated defamation. Randall's Food Mkts., Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 646 (Tex. 1995); Doe, 43 S.W.3d at 48. A defamatory oral statement may be slander per se or slander per quod. Minyard Food Stores, Inc. v. Goodman, 50 S.W.3d 131, 140 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001), rev'd on other grounds, 80 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2002). If a statement is slander per quod, the plaintiff must present proof of actual damages. Id. If the statement is slander per se, no independent proof of damage to the plaintiff's reputation or of mental anguish is required, as the slander itself gives rise to a presumption of these damages. Mustang Athletic Corp. v. Monroe, 137 S.W.3d 336, 339 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2004, no pet.) (citing Leyendecker Assocs., Inc. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369, 374 (Tex. 1984) (op. on reh'g)). Per se is defined as "of, in, or by itself; standing alone." Black's Law Dictionary 1178 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 8th ed., West 2004).
Per quod is Latin for "whereby," and is defined as "requiring reference to additional facts." Black's Law Dictionary 1177 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 8th ed., West 2004).
To be considered slander per se, the statement must (1) impute the commission of a crime; (2) impute contraction of a loathsome disease; (3) cause injury to a person's office, business, profession, or calling; or (4) impute sexual misconduct. Goodman, 50 S.W.3d at 140. Whether words are capable of the defamatory meaning the plaintiff attributes to them is a question of law for the court. Musser v. Smith Protective Serv., Inc., 723 S.W.2d 653, 654-55. “The appropriate standard of review of the grant or denial of a motion to dismiss is whether the well-pleaded allegations of fact contained in the complaint, taken as true, reveal any set of facts that would support the claim made. Rivera v. Prince George's County Health Dept., 102 Md.App. 456 (1994) (citing Flaherty v. Weinberg, 303 Md. 116, 135–36, 492 A.2d 618 (1985).
The Plaintiff, in this case, has approached this court seeking redress for the alleged "violations of rights" as stipulated under the provisions of 735 ILCS 5/13-201, which pertains to Defamation and Violations of Privacy. The Plaintiff alleges that the Congressman, along with his staff and employees, have exploited their privileged access to information and resources to depict her as mentally unstable. This portrayal, she contends, has significantly impeded her ability to secure stable housing and gainful employment, thereby causing her considerable distress and hardship. The Plaintiff's claim is grounded in the assertion that these actions constitute slander, libel, or the publication of matter that infringes upon her right to privacy. As per the provisions of the aforementioned statute, such actions must be commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks damages for these alleged violations, asserting that the actions of the Congressman and his staff have caused her significant harm.
The Plaintiff, in this case, comes before this court to seek redress for alleged violations of rights protected under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994, and specifically, the rights to privacy as stipulated in VAWA 24 C.F.R. § 5.2005. The Plaintiff asserts that these rights, which are designed to safeguard individuals from domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, have been egregiously violated, resulting in significant harm and distress. The Plaintiff further contends that these violations have not only infringed upon their personal safety and dignity but have also led to a breach of their privacy rights, as enshrined in the aforementioned legislation. In addition to these claims, the Plaintiff also seeks damages for alleged violations of human rights, specifically those pertaining to discrimination against individuals with disabilities. These rights are protected under the Fair Housing Act 2023 and the Americans with Disabilities Act 2023. The Plaintiff maintains that they have been subjected to unjust and prejudiced treatment on account of their disability, in contravention of these Acts. This court is thus called upon to adjudicate these matters, taking into consideration the gravity of the alleged violations and the protections afforded by these pieces of legislation. The plaintiff, in this case, has approached this court seeking redress for alleged damages incurred due to purported "violations of rights" as safeguarded under the 740 ILCS 145 Slander and Libel Act. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant has committed defamation, a serious offense that involves the dissemination of false information about the plaintiff to a third party, often referred to as 'publication' by legal entities. The plaintiff contends that this act of defamation has resulted in significant harm to their reputation, a key element in establishing a defamation claim. Furthermore, the plaintiff is also seeking damages for alleged "violations of rights" under the 735 ILCS 5/13-201 Defamation and Violations of Privacy Act. This Act provides protection against slander, libel, or the publication of material that infringes upon an individual's right to privacy. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's actions constitute a clear violation of these rights, and as such, they are seeking appropriate legal remedies.
This court is thus tasked with the responsibility of examining the evidence presented and determining whether the defendant's actions indeed constitute a violation of the plaintiff's rights as protected under the aforementioned statutes.
The Plaintiff, in this case, comes before this honorable court seeking relief for a multitude of rights violations, including but not limited to, those protected under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), confidentiality, privacy, and other concerns that should have been safeguarded under federal law. The Plaintiff's plea is not merely a cry for justice, but a call for the enforcement of the very principles that underpin our democratic society. The Plaintiff alleges that the Congressman and his staff, who are entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the law, have instead violated it, thereby infracting upon the Plaintiff's rights. The Plaintiff's allegations are grave and serious, warranting thorough investigation and due process. The Plaintiff implores this court to allow this case to proceed, in order to remedy the various rights that have been violated. The Plaintiff's plea is not just for personal redress, but for the restoration of faith in our legal system, and the assurance that no individual, regardless of their position or power, is above the law. The Plaintiff seeks not only justice for the personal harm suffered but also to ensure that such violations do not recur, thereby protecting future potential victims. The Plaintiff's plea is a testament to the courage and resilience of those who dare to stand up against power, and a reminder of our collective responsibility to uphold the principles of justice, equality, and the rule of law.
I certify that all statements made in this Motion are true and correct. I understand that making false statements is perjury under 735 ILCS 5/1-109.