PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
The
Plaintiff respectfully submits this opposition to the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, as outlined, on the grounds that the case at hand fundamentally
challenges the Defendant's failure to act on complaints concerning illegal
activities and federal law. These activities are specifically related to
violations of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a critical piece of
legislation designed to protect the rights and safety of women. The Plaintiff
contends that the Defendant has neglected their duty to enforce the provisions
of VAWA, particularly those outlined in section (b) which prohibits the denial
or termination of assistance or eviction on certain grounds. According to this
section, an applicant for assistance or a tenant assisted under a covered housing
program should not be denied admission to, denied assistance under, terminated
from participation in, or evicted from the housing on the basis or as a direct
result of their status. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's inaction in
the face of these violations is not only a dereliction of duty but also a
breach of the rights of those protected under VAWA. The named Defendant(s) have
egregiously abused their privileged access to confidentially protected data,
information, and files, exploiting these resources for their own political
advancement and/or gains.
This blatant misuse of sensitive
materials not only breaches the trust bestowed upon them but also infringes
upon the legal parameters outlined in §1501 et seq., which explicitly restricts
the political activity of employees, including their candidacy for public
office in a partisan election. Furthermore, the Defendant(s) have manipulated
the "close family trust" to position themselves as executors of the
Plaintiff, a role they have used to further their own interests rather than
uphold the welfare of the Plaintiff. This manipulation extends to the
defamation of the Plaintiff's name and/or reputation, a reprehensible act
committed with the sole intention of monetary gains. Such actions are not only
unethical but also a violation of the trust and responsibility that comes with
their position. The Defendant(s) have demonstrated a clear disregard for the
principles of integrity, confidentiality, and respect for the rights of others,
thereby warranting legal intervention and appropriate consequences. The professional
tone of this paragraph underscores the gravity of the Defendant(s) actions and
the urgent need for justice to be served.
The Plaintiff, therefore, opposes the
motion to dismiss, maintaining that the case presents serious and valid
concerns that warrant thorough judicial examination. "Violence
that primarily targets women has too often been dismissed without response…I've
become convinced that the violence against women reflects as much a failure of
our nation's collective moral imagination as it does a failure of our nations'
laws and our nations' regulations. We are helpless to change the course of this
violence…unless and until we achieve national consensus that it deserves our
profound public outrage and laws that reflect that profound public outrage…The
bill is the first comprehensive approach to fighting all forms of violence
against women. Then Senator Joseph Biden (D-De), one of the primary sponsors of
the VAWA, Major Leader Special Transcript, Response to Release of
"Response to Rape Report," Federal News Service, May 27, 1993. The
VAWA bill gives all persons the right to be free from gender-motivated
violence. This civil rights provision is both the most important and the most
controversial of the entire Act.
The civil rights provision embodies
the spirit of the VAWA. It gives women who have been victims of
gender-motivated violence the right to bring a private suit in federal
court. If successful, plaintiffs can recover compensatory and punitive damages
and injunctive or declaratory relief. The civil rights provision
recognizes, for the first time, the right to be free from gender-motivated
violence as a federal civil right. In order to recover under §13981, a
plaintiff must prove that she was the victim of a crime of violence and that
the crime was committed because of gender or on the basis of gender and was
due, at least in part, to a gender-based animus. Random acts of
violence are not covered; the court must determine, based on a “totality of the
circumstances,” that the violence was not random but gender-motivated.
Please read over the statute, 42 USCA § 13981.
The right to be free from
gender-motivated violence is intuitive at some level. Many women understand
this as an important tool to fight male oppression. The civil rights provision
seems less intuitive to many males--powerful males-- who have used their high
offices to oppose it. Chief Justice Rehnquist, for example, has twice spoken
out publicly against the civil rights provision (rare public commentary for a
Chief Justice) and criticized it in his 1991 Year-End Report on the Federal
Judiciary. The Fourth Circuit cited these objections with approval in holding
the civil rights remedy unconstitutional in the Brzonkala case. The heart of
the objection was that a federal civil right to be free from gender-motivated
violence would intrude on areas of regulation traditionally allocated to the
states. Yet, thirty-eight state attorneys general supported the VAWA Civil
Rights remedy. These arguments are currently playing themselves out in the
Supreme Court, which heard arguments on the constitutionality of the civil
rights provision (only) on January 11, 2000. The first case brought under the
statute involved a 19-year-old college freshman, Christy Brzonkala, who alleged
she was raped by two college football players within days of starting
school at Virginia Polytechnical Institute. She initially told no one about the
attack, but after a failed suicide attempt, she reported the rapes to the
school.
The school brought charges against
the men, eventually suspending one of them for a year and dismissing the
charges against one for lack of evidence. However, the suspension was lifted by
the school and the defendant returned to school the next fall on full athletic
scholarship. When Christy learned of this, she withdrew from school and
initiated the civil rights suit. In 1997, a panel of 4th Circuit judges upheld
the constitutionality of the VAWA Civil Rights Remedy (and held that Brzonkala
had stated a valid claim). The 2-1 decision was authored by Judge Diana Motz.
It went through the legislative record of the VAWA in great detail, concluding
that violence against women had a substantial effect on interstate commerce,
and thus was a constitutional exercise of Congressional authority. Judge Luddig
dissented, assuring the public that his brethren would likely reverse the
decision when they reheard it en banc. Indeed, the first ruling was reversed on
March 5, 1999 when, in a 7-4 en banc decision, the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals held that Congress did not have the authority to create the Civil
Rights Remedy. Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic, 169
F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 1999) (this full text version is optional; excerpts
from the case are assigned below). Please read these excerpts from the Circuit Court
decision; as you read, please note that much of the argument references US
v. Lopez, a Supreme Court case striking down Congressional legislation
criminalizing gun possession near public schools. U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct.
1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995). The Court in Lopez held
that legislation to be an unconstitutional assertion of Congressional power
under the Commerce Clause.
Secondly, on April 12, 2024, Judge
Andreou made a significant decision to dispose of a case that had been under
his jurisdiction. This decision was made after the sudden realization that the
case had already been transferred to the Federal court on January 25, 2024. The
plaintiff, in this case, had been proactive in her legal proceedings, having
submitted her Motion for Attorney Representation, an application to proceed
without prepaying fees or cost affidavit, and a Motion for Extension of
Time. Plaintiff was never served with claim, was unaware the
case was transferred to the federal court, and seeks legal representation and
has “limited” Pro Se capabilities and/or resources.
These legal documents were crucial in
her pursuit of justice, as they were intended to facilitate her legal
representation, alleviate her financial burden, and provide her with additional
time to prepare her case, respectively. However, on April 30, 2024, these
documents were unfortunately rejected due to efiling (ebox) filing issues. This
rejection was a setback for the plaintiff, as it meant that her legal
proceedings were temporarily halted due to technical difficulties. The
professional tone of this situation underscores the importance of meticulous
attention to detail in legal proceedings, as even minor errors can lead to
significant delays. It also highlights the need for efficient and reliable
electronic filing systems in the judicial system, to ensure that all parties
involved in a case can proceed without unnecessary hindrances.
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
To withstand a challenge under Rule
12(b)(6), “a complaint must set forth ‘factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.’” Bowman v. Iddon, 848 F.3d 1034, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). A court reviewing a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) must “accept as true all of the factual allegations
contained in the complaint and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party.” Autor v. Pritzker, 740 F.3d 176, 179 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Moreover, “[a]
complaint survives a motion to dismiss even ‘if there are two alternative
explanations, one advanced by [the] defendant and the other advanced by [the]
plaintiff, both of which are plausible.’” Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham, 798
F.3d 1119, 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216
(9th Cir. 2011) (first bracket added)). Even if the defendant believes that its
version will “prove to be the true one”, that does not relieve defendant of its
obligation to respond to a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief,
and to participate in discovery.
ARGUMENT
Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs ask the courts to allow said case
to proceed based on the following: 1. Defendants colluded with abuser former
Chicago Bulls player Scottie Pippen to conceal and/or cover up rape, illegal
seizure, stalking and/or harassment for political and monetary gain, willfully
causing Plaintiff and her family immense and irreparable mental, emotional,
financial, psychological duress. 2. Defendants willfully used Plaintiff
information, data and confidentially protected (collected) information and/or
access to the Chicago Housing Authority, to abuse, misuse and exploit Plaintiff
high profiler stalking circumstances for personal advancement, political gains
and posturing; including and not limited to securing the Democratic National
Convention, securing said deal with Chicago Housing and the Chicago Fire land
deal and other dealings abusing his authority and/or knowledge of plaintiff
high profile domestic violence history and/or claims. 3. Defendants retaliated
with “forced evictions”, “threats of harm and/or violence”, “delayed
assistance”, obstruction of justice “threats of false imprisonment”, “witness
tampering”, “slander” and “defamation of personal and professional character”
using allies in political power to execute and/or enforce harassing behavior
that has led to mental and emotional duress, for Plaintiff, her children and
family.
I. Defendants
colluded with abuser former Chicago Bulls player Scottie Pippen to conceal
and/or cover up rape, illegal seizure, stalking and/or harassment for political
and monetary gain, willfully causing Plaintiff and her family immense and
irreparable mental, emotional, financial, psychological duress.
In the case of
Valentine v Scottie Pippen 2024L002166, the Plaintiff alleges that the Named
Defendants, who held significant political positions and powers, egregiously
abused their authority. The Plaintiff contends that these individuals, through
their actions, evoked and enforced false imprisonment, mental detainments, and
malicious arrests. These actions were purportedly taken to conceal their
involvement in a series of heinous crimes, including the rape, illegal seizure,
and murder of the Plaintiff's son. The Plaintiff further alleges that these
Named Defendants threatened detainment as a means to suppress any potential
exposure of their illicit activities. Moreover, the
Plaintiff asserts that these individuals, in a calculated and malicious act of
collusion and conspiracy, terminated housing benefits to further oppress and
silence the Plaintiff. This termination of benefits, the Plaintiff argues, was
a strategic move designed to cover up and conceal the crimes. The Plaintiff
maintains that these actions were not only a gross misuse of power but also a
flagrant violation of their rights.
In the context of the Valentine v
Scottie Pippen 2024L002166 case, the Plaintiff accuses the Named Defendants of
colluding to "cover up" these activities. The Plaintiff alleges that
these individuals, while acting as an advocate on their behalf, were in fact
working against them, further exacerbating the trauma and distress they were
experiencing. The Plaintiff's allegations paint a picture of a deeply
entrenched system of corruption and abuse of power, where those in positions of
authority use their influence to perpetrate and conceal crimes, rather than
uphold justice and protect the rights of individuals. The
allegations made in this case underscore the urgent need for transparency,
accountability, and justice in our political and legal systems. It is a stark
reminder that those in positions of power must be held to the highest standards
of conduct and integrity, and any deviation from these standards must be met
with swift and appropriate legal action.
In his own word, after accepting VAWA
complaint from Plaintiff on May 11, 2021, the Congressman spoke and said: Davis
said about the "Violence Against Women Act," "While VAWA
secured many transformative safeties, there remains much work to do to ensure
the protection of all women. Unfortunately, one in three women today have
experienced sexual and domestic violence and even higher rates for women of
color and women from marginalized communities." REP. DANNY K.
DAVIS APPLAUDS THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR PROVIDING GRANTS TO PROTECT
WOMEN AND CHILDREN. September 30, 2021. Davis continued, "It is
vitally important that our women and children, and anyone which experience
domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking are protected.
Unfortunately, there are too many creeps out there just waiting to prey."
II. Defendants
willfully used Plaintiff information, data and confidentially protected
(collected) information and/or access to the Chicago Housing Authority, to
abuse, misuse and exploit Plaintiff high profiler stalking circumstances for
personal advancement, political gains and posturing.
The Defendants, in a calculated and
willful manner, exploited the Plaintiff's confidential information, data, and
access to the Chicago Housing Authority, which was collected and protected
under stringent confidentiality norms. This egregious misuse of information was
not only a violation of trust but also a blatant abuse of the Plaintiff's
high-profile stalking circumstances.
The Defendants manipulated this
sensitive situation for their personal advancement, political gains, and
strategic posturing. This exploitation extended to accepting various forms of
bribes, including monetary gifts, trips, and even Chicago Bulls tickets, all
under the guise of "covering up" events. These events were directly
related to the tragic murder of Devonte Pippen, a case that has been marred by
threats, stalking harassments, and various activities of domestic violence.
The Defendants' actions have further
complicated the claims involving Scottie Pippen, adding another layer of
complexity to an already convoluted situation. Their actions have not only
undermined the integrity of the legal process but also further victimized the
Plaintiff, who is already grappling with the traumatic aftermath of stalking
and violence. The professional tone of this paragraph underscores the gravity
of the Defendants' actions and the serious implications of their willful misuse
of confidential information.
In the case of Valentine v. Chi.
Hous. Auth., 2023 Ill. App. 230271, the defendants egregiously abused their
powers, authority, and privileged access to the plaintiff's personal
information. This abuse was not merely an overreach of their authority, but a
calculated and systematic effort to suppress the plaintiff's testimony and
exploit the data gathered for their personal and political gains.
The defendants, in their positions of
power, had access to sensitive information, which they unscrupulously used to
their advantage, thereby violating the plaintiff's rights. When the plaintiff
attempted to report and document these abuses, she was met with malicious
prosecution, a clear attempt to silence her and further exploit the power
imbalance. This case underscores the potential for misuse of authority and the
importance of checks and balances within systems of power. It also highlights
the courage of individuals like the plaintiff, who despite facing significant
obstacles, strive to hold those in power accountable for their actions. The
defendants' actions in this case are a stark reminder of the potential for
corruption within systems of power, and the necessity for vigilance and
transparency to prevent such abuses.
III. Defendants
retaliated with “termination of CHA housing benefits for endorsing and/or
working with other candidates, “forced evictions”, “threats of harm and/or
violence”, “physical assault” by staff members of the Congressman’s staff,
“delayed assistance”, “obstruction of justice”, “threats of false
imprisonment”, “witness tampering”, “slander” and “defamation of personal and
professional character” using allies in political power to execute and/or
enforce harassing behavior that has led to mental and emotional duress, for
Plaintiff, her children and family.
Since the Plaintiff filed the claim
on January 23, 2024, the Defendants have engaged in a series of retaliatory
actions that have not only violated her rights but also caused significant
mental and emotional distress. The Defendants, who are in positions of power,
have used their influence to terminate the Plaintiff's CHA housing benefits, a
move that appears to be a punishment for her endorsement and collaboration with
other political candidates. This action has not only left the Plaintiff in a
precarious housing situation but also sent a chilling message to others who
might consider challenging the status quo.
Moreover, the Defendants have
resorted to "forced evictions", a tactic that is not only illegal but
also inhumane. These evictions have left the Plaintiff and her family in a
state of constant fear and uncertainty, disrupting their lives and causing
undue hardship. The Defendants have also made "threats of harm and/or
violence", a clear violation of the Plaintiff's right to safety and
security. These threats have been carried out by staff members of the
Congressman's office, further highlighting the abuse of power at play. In
addition to these egregious actions, the Defendants have also engaged in
"physical assault", an act that is not only criminal but also morally
reprehensible. The Plaintiff has been subjected to "delayed
assistance", a tactic that seems designed to wear her down and force her
to abandon her claim. The Defendants have also engaged in "obstruction of
justice", a serious offense that undermines the integrity of our legal
system.
Furthermore, the Defendants have made
"threats of false imprisonment", a clear attempt to intimidate the
Plaintiff and prevent her from pursuing her claim. They have also engaged in
"witness tampering", a tactic that undermines the fairness of the
legal process and threatens the Plaintiff's right to a fair trial.
The Defendants have also resorted to
"slander" and "defamation of personal and professional
character", actions that have caused significant damage to the Plaintiff's
reputation. These actions have not only harmed the Plaintiff personally but
also professionally, affecting her ability to earn a living and support her
family.
The Defendants have used their allies
in political power to execute and enforce this harassing behavior, a clear
abuse of power that undermines the principles of democracy and justice. This
behavior has led to significant mental and emotional duress for the Plaintiff,
her children, and her family. The actions of the Defendants are not only
illegal but also deeply unethical, and they must be held accountable for their
actions.
The named defendants in this case
have been identified as active and willful participants in all aspects of the
plaintiff's private, personal, and professional life. Their involvement has
been so pervasive that it has led to significant and detrimental consequences
for the plaintiff. One of the most egregious instances of their interference
was the illegal seizure that occurred in 2008, which resulted in the complete
dissolution and destruction of the plaintiff's family. This incident was
orchestrated for and with Scottie Pippen, a notable figure in the plaintiff's
life. The aftermath of this event led to two federal filings, specifically
2010cv04751 and 2011cv08532. Unfortunately, these filings were dismissed due to
the plaintiff's limited knowledge and understanding of federal laws and
procedures. This lack of legal expertise served as a significant barrier for
the plaintiff, preventing her from effectively pursuing justice and holding the
defendants accountable for their actions. It is important to note that the
defendants' actions were not isolated incidents, but rather part of a larger
pattern of behavior that has caused significant harm to the plaintiff. The
professional tone of this paragraph underscores the seriousness of the
allegations and the need for a thorough investigation into the defendants'
actions.
The egregious abuse of authority and
power by the Congressman and his staff has been a matter of grave concern. They
have exploited their positions and access to influential local leaders,
including Governor JB Pritzker, Congressman Jonathan Jackson, Mayors Lori
Lightfoot and Brandon Johnson, Cook County President Toni Preckwinkle, State’s Attorney
Kim Fox, Alderman Leslie Hairston, Southshore Chamber Trina Trice and numerous Cook County judges,
clerks, employees and clergy. Their objective has been to evade accountability
and discredit the Plaintiff from filing legal action or claims against Scottie
Pippen. This concerted effort has been aimed at concealing the alleged rape,
illegal seizure, and murder of the Plaintiff's children, Devonte Pippen,
Dejanara Valentine, and Torrence Thomas Jr. The Congressman and his staff have
used their power and authority not to uphold justice, but to slander the
Plaintiff, manipulating the narrative to their advantage. This misuse of power
and authority is not only unethical but also undermines the very principles of
justice and fairness that our society is built upon.
It is a stark reminder of the need
for checks and balances in our system, to prevent such exploitation and ensure
that every individual, regardless of their status or influence, is held
accountable for their actions. See Valentine et al v. DCFS et al 1:2010cv04751
and Valentine et al v. D.C.F.S. et al 1:2011cv08532.
The facts of this case can be
assessed only after the discovery and both parties’ submission of evidence
regarding the propriety and reasonableness of the defendant delay in acting on
plaintiff’s complaints. For now, the only facts that matter are those that
plaintiff has alleged, considered in the light most favorable to it, and those
facts properly allege a cause of action Giffords v. FEC (19-1192) Plaintiff's
Opposition to Motion.
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.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff
respectfully asks this Court For the reasons outlined
above, and for reasons outlined in complaint above, and grant the Plaintiff to
continue said claim, based on the damages incurred because of said derelict of
duties, abuses of powers and violations as outlined, and ask the Defendant(s)
Motion to Dismiss be denied.
This was filed on June 8, 2024
