WHAT ARE YOU DOING TODAY IN VEGAS??? 2 FREE GENERAL ADMISSION TICKETS ON ME POOL PARTIES

WHAT ARE YOU DOING TODAY IN VEGAS???         2 FREE GENERAL ADMISSION TICKETS ON ME     POOL PARTIES
Get On the Guest List For FREE!!! Some clubs offer "free drinks" click here *** NEW MAILING ADDRESS PO BOX 70044, LAS VEGAS, NV 89119***

Tuesday, August 13, 2024

FILED!!! VALENTINE VS PIPPEN 2024L002166

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

 


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION

Chyvette A. Valentine,

 

Plaintiff,

 

v.

 

Chicago Bulls,

Scottie Pippen,

Carl Pippen,

Larsa Pippen et. al.,

Defendant(s).     

   No. 2024L002166

 

Courtroom

 

Judge Maire Aileen Dempsey

 

Damages: $300 Million

 

Three Hundred Million dollars

 

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Plaintiff, Chyvette A. Valentine, respectfully submits this opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

2. Plaintiff alleges serious offenses and seeks damages in the amount of $300 million for the following claims:

3. Stalking (720 ILCS 5/12-7.4): Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant(s) engaged in stalking activities in violation of Illinois law. Additionally, Plaintiff claims violations under:

4. Interstate Stalking (18 U.S.C. § 2261A): Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant(s) engaged in interstate stalking, violating federal laws amended in 1996, 2000, 2006, and 2013.

5. Harassment (720 ILCS 5/26.5-2) and Intimidation (720 ILCS 5/12-6): Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant(s) engaged in persistent harassment and intimidation, causing significant emotional and psychological distress.

6. Solicitation and Solicitation of Murder (720 ILCS 5/8-1): Plaintiff claims that the Defendant(s) solicited the commission of crimes, including but not limited to solicitation of murder, through commands, encouragement, or requests.

7. Defamation of Character and Slander (740 ILCS 145/ Slander and Libel Act): Plaintiff contends that the Defendant(s) engaged in defamation and slander, damaging Plaintiff's reputation and character.

8. Child Support (1993-2012): Plaintiff demands child support payments for Devonte Pippen from the years 1993 to 2012, which have allegedly been willfully neglected by Defendant Scottie Pippen.

9. Willful Infliction of Mental, Emotional, Physical, and Psychological Abuse: Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant(s) inflicted severe emotional and psychological harm.

JURISDICTION

10. The Court finds that venue is proper in Cook County, Illinois, under Sections 2-101 and 2-102 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.

I. INTRODUCTION

11. A motion to dismiss requires that the Court assume all allegations in the complaint are true and view them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff.

12. Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

13. Plaintiff claims that Scottie Pippen, along with his family, friends, associates, and/or vendors, inflicted intentional mental, emotional, physical, and psychological abuse on her.

Factual Background

14. Plaintiff, Chyvette A. Valentine, has been a victim of stalking and harassment for over 30 years.

15. Despite her numerous attempts to resolve this matter amicably, the NBA and the Chicago Bulls organization have allowed this conduct to persist without taking corrective measures.

A. See copy of service to NBA executive offices served August 05, 2020.
B. See copy of service to Adam Silver served February 20, 2020.
C. See copy of service to Michael Jordan served February 21, 2020.
D. See Congressman Danny K. Davis VAWA report.
E. See CHA VAWA report.
F. See Canceled Police Report.

16. Plaintiff specifically alleges that the Chicago Bulls have a troubling history of covering up misconduct by their players, including Scottie Pippen and his brother, Carl Pippen.

A. See Valentine vs. Congressman Danny Davis et. al., 2024cv00676.
B. See Valentine vs. Earvin Magic Johnson et. al.
C. See Valentine vs. Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson et al.
D. See Valentine vs. Lisa McCoy et. al.
E. See Valentine vs. Dr. Theressia Washington et. al.

All cases are directly related to stalking activities reported, associated with/for and/or about Scottie Pippen.

17. The complaint details that in 1993, while Scottie Pippen was employed by the Chicago Bulls, he and his brother were involved in a sexual assault incident that the organization failed to address.

A. See Arkansas Child Support Records.

18. Additionally, the Plaintiff asserts a pattern of harassment and stalking by Scottie Pippen, which has been exacerbated by the NBA’s and Chicago Bulls’ failure to hold him accountable.

A. See email to Mayor Jonathan Rothschild of Tucson, Arizona.
B. See email to Mayor Carol Goodman of Las Vegas, Nevada.
C. See email to Gary Rhodes of Santa Monica, California.

19. This systemic neglect by the Defendants has facilitated ongoing abuse, causing significant harm to the Plaintiff.

 

II. LEGAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST DISMISSAL

A. The Complaint States Valid Claims

20. Defendants argue that the complaint fails to state a claim. However, the Plaintiff’s allegations, including the cover-up of misconduct, failure to hold players accountable, and subsequent harassment, are substantial and meet the legal standards for several claims, including negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of duty.

21. The complaint provides specific instances of alleged abuse and systemic failures that are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

22. This includes, but is not limited to, the Chicago Bulls authorizing and granting a bedroom fantasy suite to be erected with the anticipation of Scottie Pippen luring the Plaintiff to said suite with intentions of sex trafficking activities.

23. The NBA, namely the Chicago Bulls, have been aware of the “unpredictable” relations between Plaintiff and Defendant (Scottie Pippen), yet chose to “turn a blind eye” while their employee (player) continues his unpredictable behavior they enable.


 

B. The Plaintiff Has Standing and Jurisdiction is Proper.

24. Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff lacks standing or that the court lacks jurisdiction is without merit.

25. Plaintiff has standing based on the direct harm suffered due to the alleged misconduct and the Defendants' actions.

26. Additionally, the court has jurisdiction over these claims as they involve violations of state and federal laws, and the conduct described has crossed state lines, thus engaging federal statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 2261A (Interstate Stalking).

27. As stated previously, Plaintiff has attempted multiple times to hold Defendants accountable for their actions.

28. This is Plaintiff’s first successful filing.

C. The Complaint Is Adequate and Defendants’ Conduct Is Relevant

29. Plaintiff’s claims are directly tied to the Defendants' conduct. The allegations against Scottie Pippen and his associates are connected to the actions of the Chicago Bulls and the NBA, who are accused of providing protection and support to Pippen, thereby facilitating ongoing harm to the Plaintiff.

30. This direct/indirect involvement and the systemic nature of the alleged cover-up render the claims valid and appropriate for judicial review.

D. Request for Leave to Amend

31. Should the Court find any deficiencies in the complaint, the Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend.

32. Plaintiff is prepared to correct any errors and provide additional details and supporting documentation to substantiate the claims.

33. Such amendments are crucial to fully address all relevant allegations and ensure that the claims are properly articulated.

E. Request for Special Service

34. Considering the history of stalking and harassment by the Defendants, the Plaintiff requests permission for special service of process to all Defendants via email, public posting, certified mail, and/or through third-party service to Jason Giller, Esq., representing Scottie Pippen.

35. This measure is necessary to ensure that all parties are properly notified and to safeguard the Plaintiff’s right to a fair legal process.

III. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO THE INCLUSION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS

A. Questioning the Inclusion of Standing Censure

36. Plaintiff, Chyvette A. Valentine, respectfully questions the inclusion of standing censure related to the order put in place by Honorable Rebecca Pallmeyer. This reprimand stemmed from an email sent by the Plaintiff concerning the sudden death of former Judge James Zagel, a close friend and lover of the Plaintiff.

37. Plaintiff had suggested that Scottie Pippen may have had a connection to Judge Zagel's untimely death, which led to the reprimand.

38. Plaintiff asserts that the inclusion of this document is not only irrelevant to the present case but also raises serious concerns regarding the Defendant(s)' potential involvement in the death of Judge Zagel.

39. Plaintiff further questions the timing and circumstances surrounding the death of David Reinsdorf on March 3, 2014, which occurred while the Plaintiff was actively attempting to establish a legal claim.

40. The suspicious nature of these deaths, coupled with the Plaintiff's ongoing concerns about harassment and stalking, necessitates further scrutiny and investigation.

B. Implications of the Inclusion

41. Plaintiff contends that the insertion of these documents, particularly in a motion to dismiss, appears to be an attempt to discredit the Plaintiff and distract from the substantive claims presented in this case.

42. The inclusion of irrelevant documents, particularly those with potentially incriminating implications against the Defendant(s), should not prejudice the court against the Plaintiff’s valid claims.

43. Plaintiff emphasizes that these claims are not baseless but are supported by a long history of alleged misconduct, harassment, and failure by the Defendant(s) to address or mitigate the harm caused to the Plaintiff.


 

IV. CONCLUSION

44. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

45. Plaintiff also requests any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.