BANNER
Thursday, October 29, 2026
YOUR HONOR, BEFORE YOU JUDGE ME KNOW WHO I AM
CAN YOU IMAGINE BEING #HATED BECAUSE YOUR GRANDFATHER IS #TRUMP #WHITE
Before I sound absolutely crazy, irrational, or insane to anyone who does not know my history, let me remind you of who I am, what I have accomplished, and the experiences that have shaped my life.
I am not simply a woman speaking out. I am a woman with a history of public service, education, professional experience, and personal accomplishments that extend far beyond what anyone might see on the surface.
Let me introduce myself.
I am a former Aldermanic candidate, a registered Republican, and someone who has spent years navigating public service, professional responsibilities, and the pursuit of higher education.
I have received two Presidential Honors, one associated with President George W. Bush and another with President Barack Obama. Those recognitions are part of my personal history and a reminder of the work and experiences that have shaped my journey.
I was raised with the influence and guidance of two congressmen, Bobby Rush and Danny Davis, whose presence in my life helped shape my understanding of politics, public service, and the importance of having a voice.
My professional background includes serving in multiple capacities involving federal, state, municipal, and private-hire security roles. I also have experience as a former Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) trainee/officer.
My commitment to education has continued throughout my life. My academic pursuits include a double major in Tort Law and Business Administration, a double minor in Culinary Arts and Hospitality Management, and the pursuit of a paralegal degree.
I have spent years learning, working, serving, and building my understanding of the systems that govern our society.
So, before someone dismisses me, questions my intelligence, or attempts to define me by a difficult moment in my life, I ask that they consider the full picture.
A person's emotional expression does not erase their education. A person's frustration does not cancel their accomplishments. And a person's willingness to speak out does not automatically make their concerns irrational.
I am human. I have experienced challenges, disappointments, and circumstances that have tested my patience and resilience. Like anyone else, I can become frustrated when I believe I am being misunderstood, mistreated, or ignored.
But I refuse to believe that speaking passionately about my experiences should automatically disqualify me from being heard.
I understand that credibility matters. Facts matter. Evidence matters. Accountability matters. And when legal matters are involved, the law and the evidence must ultimately speak for themselves.
I do not expect anyone to agree with every statement I make. I do expect people to distinguish between disagreement and disrespect, between questioning someone's position and attacking their character, and between evaluating evidence and making assumptions about a person's mental state.
My background does not make me infallible. My education does not mean I cannot make mistakes. My professional experience does not mean I know everything.
What it does mean is that there is more to my story than a single statement, a public disagreement, or someone else's opinion of me.
I am a woman with a history, an education, professional experience, ambitions, and a voice.
Before you decide who I am, take the time to understand the journey that brought me here.
Before you judge my words, consider the circumstances surrounding them.
And before you call me crazy, remember that a person can be passionate, frustrated, outspoken, and determined without those qualities defining their entire character.
I have worked. I have studied. I have served. I have continued to pursue my goals despite obstacles.
And I am still here.
Your Honor, with all due respect, I ask only that I be evaluated on the facts, the evidence, and the totality of my circumstances—not on assumptions about who someone believes I am.
My story is bigger than your opinion of me.
My accomplishments are part of my history.
My voice is my own.
And my journey is not over.
I KNOW YOU LYING!!! MIND YOUR MF BUSINESS!!!
FORD WAS WITH LISA WHEN I WALKED INTO COURT (REWATCH THE VIDEO)
8:34 am KAMALA IN VEGAS TODAY #WANDA (repost)
I am writing to request a thorough, impartial, and documented review of several civil matters in which I am the plaintiff. I am seeking clarification regarding differences in case communications, the handling of my claims, and the circumstances surrounding dismissals and the absence of correspondence in certain proceedings.
I am particularly concerned about the apparent differences in procedural communication between Valentine v. Siegel Suites, Case No. 26A002175, and Valentine v. Circle K. I have received notice of mandatory mediation in the Siegel Suites matter, yet, to date, I have not received comparable correspondence concerning my Circle K case.
I respectfully ask the appropriate offices to explain whether this difference reflects ordinary case-processing procedures, a difference in case status, a service or notice issue, or another circumstance that can be verified through the official court records.
I. Concerns Regarding Valentine v. Siegel Suites and Valentine v. Circle K
In Valentine v. Siegel Suites, Case No. 26A002175, I have received notice requiring mandatory mediation. However, I have not received correspondence regarding the status or next procedural steps in Valentine v. Circle K.
I would appreciate written clarification of the following:
What is the current procedural status of each case?
Have notices, orders, mediation referrals, or other communications been issued in the Circle K matter?
If correspondence was issued, when was it sent, by what method, and to what address or electronic contact?
Are there any outstanding service requirements, filing deficiencies, deadlines, or other procedural matters that could explain the difference?
Is there any documented basis for treating the two cases differently, and, if so, where can that basis be found in the official record?
I am not asking either office to presume wrongdoing merely because the cases appear to be progressing differently. I am asking for an explanation supported by the docket, relevant orders, and available administrative records.
II. Concerns Regarding Attorney General Aaron Ford
I also request an independent assessment of concerns I have regarding the possible involvement of Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford in circumstances affecting my claims.
I do not personally know Mr. Ford and have no direct knowledge of any personal relationship or legitimate reason for personal involvement by him in my individual civil disputes. Nevertheless, based on the sequence of events as I have experienced them, I am concerned about whether any action by a public official, government employee, or other person may have affected the processing, review, or disposition of my claims.
I have questioned whether the circumstances surrounding my Circle K matter may involve conduct attributable to Mr. Ford or persons acting on his behalf. I have also questioned whether matters involving my allegations of stalking or harassment associated with Scottie Pippen have any connection to the handling of other claims.
At this time, I do not have sufficient verified evidence to establish that Mr. Ford interfered with any case, directed any dismissal, manipulated court records, or acted for political favor or personal gain. I am therefore requesting an impartial investigation to determine whether there is objective evidence supporting or refuting these concerns.
Specifically, I ask that the appropriate authorities determine, to the extent within their lawful authority:
Whether Mr. Ford, his office, or anyone acting on behalf of his office communicated with court personnel, opposing parties, counsel, law-enforcement personnel, or other persons concerning my cases.
Whether any such communications occurred outside ordinary, authorized procedures or involved an improper attempt to influence a judicial or administrative decision.
Whether any person improperly altered, withheld, misdirected, or interfered with case-related correspondence, filings, notices, or records.
Whether any conflicts of interest, improper political considerations, or other misconduct can be substantiated by documentary evidence.
Whether the differences in case outcomes and communications are adequately explained by ordinary legal and procedural grounds.
I recognize that an elected official’s title, the timing of a court ruling, or a case dismissal does not itself establish misconduct. My request is that the relevant records be examined objectively and that any findings be based on verifiable evidence.
III. Review of Related Civil Matters
I ask that the following matters be reviewed for their procedural histories, dismissal orders, stated grounds for disposition, and any documented connections that are legally relevant:
Valentine v. Wong, Case No. 24A002116 — reported dismissed.
Valentine v. Cheney, Case No. 14A003570 — I understand this matter was disposed of on a statute-of-limitations or related statutory basis; I request verification of the actual order and its stated grounds.
Valentine v. Ganti, Case No. 25A001940 — reported dismissed.
Valentine v. Wong, Case No. 25A001939 — reported dismissed.
Valentine v. Siegel Suites, Case No. 26A002175 — mandatory mediation notice received.
Valentine v. Circle K — I have not received the correspondence I expected and request confirmation of the current status.
The case descriptions above reflect my present understanding. I request that the actual court dockets and signed orders be used to verify the status and basis for each disposition.
I understand that different cases may involve different facts, defendants, deadlines, jurisdictional requirements, and procedural rules. I am not asking for a favorable result simply because a claim was dismissed. I am asking whether each matter was handled according to the applicable rules and whether there is any credible evidence of improper outside influence or irregular handling.
IV. Request for Preservation and Review of Records
To the extent permitted by law and within your respective jurisdictions, I request preservation and review of records relevant to these concerns, including:
Court notices, mediation referrals, scheduling orders, and dismissal orders.
Filing receipts, docket entries, and records of service.
Correspondence concerning the status or processing of the identified matters.
Any nonprivileged communications involving public officials or government offices that specifically concern these cases.
Any available records documenting a referral, intervention, conflict review, or other action relating to the matters identified above.
I understand that court records, judicial communications, attorney-client communications, and government records may be subject to different confidentiality rules, privileges, retention requirements, and disclosure limitations. I am not requesting disclosure of protected material in violation of law. I am requesting that relevant records be preserved and reviewed through lawful procedures.
V. Requested Action by Each Office
Clark County District Attorney’s Office
I respectfully request that your office determine whether any portion of these concerns falls within its authority to review or investigate. If the allegations concern conduct outside your jurisdiction, I request that you identify the appropriate agency or referral process, if possible.
I understand that your office cannot direct a court to rule in my favor or substitute its judgment for that of a judge. My request concerns the possibility of independently verifiable misconduct, not the reconsideration of a judicial ruling through an improper channel.
State Bar of Nevada, Office of Bar Counsel
I request that the State Bar determine whether the facts and supporting documentation, if substantiated, present an issue within its authority over attorney conduct. If there is a sufficient factual basis for review, I ask that the matter be handled in accordance with the Bar’s established complaint procedures.
I understand that the State Bar does not act as an appellate court, does not reverse judicial orders, and does not discipline a person merely because a party disagrees with a litigation outcome. My concern is whether there is evidence of specific professional misconduct that warrants review.
VI. Request for Written Response
Please acknowledge receipt of this correspondence and advise me of:
Whether either office has authority to review any portion of the concerns described.
Whether additional documentation is needed to evaluate the request.
The appropriate procedure for submitting supporting evidence, including docket sheets, orders, notices, and correspondence.
Whether the matter has been referred to another agency, if such information can lawfully be provided.
I am prepared to provide copies of relevant pleadings, mediation notices, court orders, correspondence, and other records in my possession. I ask that any review distinguish between documented facts, disputed allegations, and matters that cannot presently be substantiated.
My objective is transparency, accountability, equal treatment under the law, and confidence that my civil matters are being processed according to established legal procedures. I respectfully request a thorough review without prejudgment and without any assumption that the concerns raised here have already been proven.
Thank you for your attention to this request. I look forward to receiving a written response identifying the appropriate next steps.
THE MEDIA FOUND ME DURING #TUPAC TRIALS 😀😃🙂 #DOCUMENTARY I LOST DOLLY PARTON #NOTE
Can you see me now!!!
"Truth be told I was filing cases Seigel Suites and Circle K"
Multi Tasking Filing cases While Doing Homework in Court
#IRONY "And you wonder why I drink"
#PoeticJustice #Movie
October 29, 2026
Steve Wolfson, District Attorney
Clark County District Attorney’s Office
Las Vegas, Nevada
State Bar of Nevada
Office of Bar Counsel
RE: FOLLOW-UP REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW — INTERSTATE-STALKING ALLEGATIONS, PRIOR CASE HISTORY, AND REQUEST TO REVIEW “TUPAC TRIALS — DAY 6”
Dear District Attorney Wolfson and Representatives of the State Bar of Nevada:
I am writing to follow up on my prior request for review of my civil case history and concerns about possible interference with the processing or disposition of my claims. Please consider this letter together with my earlier correspondence and any supporting records I provide.
1. Reference to “Tupac Trials — Day 6”
Please review the final 30 minutes of the program or recording identified as “Tupac Trials — Day 6.” I believe that segment depicts me or reflects an event relevant to the history I am attempting to document. I ask that it be treated as a potential lead, not as proof of my allegations. If reviewed, please document the date, source, full context, and any independently verifiable identifying details.
2. Alleged elevator encounter and family connection
I recall riding in an elevator with members of Tupac Shakur’s family. I believe the encounter may have been planned, and ask that this belief be evaluated only if reliable evidence exists to support it. During that encounter, I say I explained that my daughter’s father is Mustapha Farrakhan, a statement I describe as relating to circumstances that were not my choice. This is a personal assertion that requires independent corroboration before any conclusion can be drawn. I am not asking either office to treat the encounter, the family relationship, or my interpretation of the circumstances as established fact without evidence.
3. Relationship to my prior cases and proposed federal filing
I believe my prior case history may provide context for why I am preparing a new claim, Valentine v. Pippen, and why I have repeatedly attempted to document what I believe to be interstate stalking. I ask that relevant court records be reviewed for their actual contents and procedural outcomes, including claims asserted, orders entered, notices issued, and any documented evidence relating to conduct across state lines. My proposed federal filing must independently satisfy jurisdictional, pleading, limitations, and evidentiary requirements.
Please do not infer that cases are connected merely because they involve me or because their dates overlap. Any connection should be based on identifiable records, communications, witnesses, or other objective evidence. I can provide case numbers, pleadings, orders, and the particular recording or timestamp I am referencing.
4. Concerns regarding public officials and handling of claims
I remain concerned about whether any public official or other person improperly influenced, interfered with, or affected the handling of my claims. I have specifically questioned whether Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford or anyone acting on his behalf had a role in events relevant to my Circle K matter or other proceedings I have identified. I do not presently have verified evidence establishing that Mr. Ford manipulated a claim, caused a dismissal, or acted for political favor or personal gain. I request an impartial review to determine whether these concerns are supported by objective evidence.
An official’s prior work as a prosecutor or defense attorney, standing alone, does not establish misconduct. My concern is whether there is evidence of a specific act, communication, conflict of interest, or improper intervention. I ask that any assessment distinguish documented facts from suspicions and from matters that cannot be substantiated.
5. Requested action
To the extent permitted by law and within your respective authority, I respectfully request that your offices:
Review the prior case dockets and orders I identify, and confirm their actual procedural status and stated grounds for disposition.
Review the referenced “Tupac Trials — Day 6” segment if I provide a reliable link or copy and exact timestamp.
Determine whether specific, documented evidence warrants further inquiry into interstate-stalking allegations or possible improper interference with a civil proceeding.
Preserve and review relevant nonprivileged records within your lawful control, subject to applicable retention, confidentiality, and disclosure rules.
Advise me in writing whether this matter falls within your jurisdiction, whether more documentation is needed, or whether another agency is the appropriate recipient.
I am not asking either office to reverse a court ruling or to presume wrongdoing. I am requesting a fair, documented review of concerns that I believe warrant examination. I intend to preserve relevant materials and submit only information that I can identify and describe in good faith.
Thank you for your attention. Please acknowledge receipt and advise me of the appropriate next steps or submission procedure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
