BANNER
Monday, September 8, 2025
Sunday, September 7, 2025
Saturday, September 6, 2025
SINGLE BLACK FEMALE: SEEKING SINGLE MALE TO HAVE SOME FUN
#VEGAS
SBF 56 | Seeking Single Male (Only)
Adventurous, fun-loving, and in my golden chapter of life! I’m a 56-year-old single Black female ready to share new experiences with the right man.
✨ About Me:
Family: Kids are welcome in my world.
Lifestyle: I enjoy a casual drink, and yes I’m in love with marijuana.
Passions: As a chef and foodie, I’m always chasing the next recipe or dining adventure.
Outdoors: I love fishing, hiking, camping, horseback riding, and sitting by a fire telling stories (true Girl Scout energy!).
Sports: Big fan of baseball and football.
Relaxation: Some days are best spent doing absolutely nothing.
Music & Dance: I’m a dancer at heart and love music of all kinds.
🚐 What I’m Looking For:
A single male who enjoys spontaneous travel, especially RV adventures. Someone who’s kind, fun, and ready to embrace life’s next journey with a partner who loves both the excitement of the open road and the quiet joy of a peaceful day.
If you’re genuine, adventurous, and ready for companionship with a woman who knows how to cook, laugh, dance, and explore let’s connect.
Friday, September 5, 2025
FREE LEGAL ADVICE... Searching for Pro Bono Lawyer
Thank you for sending the motion to dismiss the appeal. It is now clear to me that the appellate court's dismissal was proper. Appellate courts only have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a circuit court order that meets the legal definition of a "final order." In this case, Judge Flanagan's order, even assuming that it was not properly entered, does not qualify as a "final order" because a dismissal for want of prosecution does not ultimately end your dispute. When a case is dismissed for want of prosecution, you are able to re-file it as a new case within one year after the dismissal. For that reason, it is not a "final order."
If you have not already filed a complaint against Judge Flanagan, I strongly recommend that you do not file it. Complaints to the judicial inquiry board are designed for unethical conduct by a judge. Disagreeing with a ruling - even one that you believe violates the law - does not qualify as unethical.
As a supervising judge of the motion section, Judge Flanagan certainly had jurisdiction over your case. Arguably, her order was improper if you did not have proper notice of the hearing date. It is possible that this date was set near the outset of the case, with notice provided by postcard or electronic service.
If you did not have notice of the May 2 hearing, it is still very likely that Judge Dempsey still would have dismissed your case for want of prosecution on May 22. That is because the court's online docket does not reflect that the remaining defendants in the case were properly served with the complaint and summons. Service in any way other than in-person delivery (if in Illinois, by a sheriff, and if outside of Illinois, by a sheriff or other process server) is not valid. Moreover, service must be accomplished within 30 days after the summons is issued by the court clerk. After that, you must request an "alias summons" and serve that within 30 days. You should also understand that serving a registered agent only applies when you a serving a corporation. Individual defendants do not have registered agents.
If you choose to re-file this case, I strongly recommend that you hire a lawyer. Cases involving this amount of money by a pro se plaintiff have almost no chance of being successful. This is the type of case that a lawyer who charges fees might take on a contingency basis, meaning that any legal fees are owed only if you recover a settlement or a judgment. To find a lawyer, a good place to start it is this website: http://www.illinoislawyerfinder.com/find-a-lawyer. If you are not able to find a contingency fee lawyer who is interested in your case, that is usually a sign that the case is not a strong one.
If you decide to re-file the case on your own, you should keep in mind all of the following:
- the statute of limitations could bar any claims arising out of actions occurring more than 5 years prior to the date that you initially filed the case that was dismissed, so it will be necessary to focus on matters occurring during the more recent time period;
- the completion of your prior lawsuit against Scottie Pippen might be grounds for dismissal of any claims against him that arise out of actions occurring before that lawsuit was done;
- your complaint will have to allege specific facts about what each defendant did;
- you should take care to limit the number of filings you make in the case. The sheer volume of what you filed with the circuit court in this case is highly unusual.
- the judge may be very skeptical of your case given the number of other cases that you have filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thursday, September 4, 2025
HELLO ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT PREPARING THE FILE TO SEND TO YOU
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
Chyvette A. Valentine,
Plaintiff–Appellant, Pro Se
v.
Scottie M. Pippen, et al.,
Defendants–Appellees.
Appeal No. 1-25-1195
On Petition for Leave to Appeal from the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, No. 1-25-1195,
from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 2024-L-002166,
Hon. Maire Dempsey, Judge Presiding.
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
NOW COMES Plaintiff–Appellant, Chyvette A. Valentine, appearing pro se, and pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 315, respectfully petitions this Court for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, First District, in the above-captioned matter.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities ..............................
.............................. i Jurisdictional Statement ..............................
...................... 1 Issues Presented for Review ..............................
................. 2 Statement of the Case and Facts ..............................
......... 3 Reasons for Granting the Petition ..............................
........ 5 Argument ..............................
.............................. ............ 7 Conclusion ..............................
.............................. ......... 11
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985)
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972)
Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954)
Ortwein v. Schwab, 410 U.S. 656 (1973)
People v. Majer, 131 Ill. App. 3d 80 (1st Dist. 1985)
People v. Salem, 2016 IL 118693
Statutes & Constitutional Provisions
28 U.S.C. § 1257(a)
42 U.S.C. § 1983
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1
Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2
Illinois Supreme Court Rules
Rule 315
Rule 367
Rule 61, Canon 2
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
This Court has jurisdiction under Ill. S. Ct. R. 315(a), which permits discretionary review of Appellate Court judgments. Federal questions are implicated under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the Appellate Court’s denial of rehearing without meaningful consideration deprives Appellant of due process and equal protection.
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Whether the Appellate Court erred in denying Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing on the same day it was filed, raising substantial concerns regarding due process and the appearance of justice.
Whether such summary denials contravene Rule 367 and violate Appellant’s rights under the Illinois and U.S. Constitutions.
Whether judicial conduct in this matter raises issues under Rule 61, Canon 2 of the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, requiring impartiality and avoidance of impropriety.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Appellant filed civil claims in Cook County Law Division under Case No. 2024-L-002166, alleging harassment, defamation, economic interference, and related damages. Default judgment proceedings were pending.
On September 3, 2025, Appellant submitted a Motion for Rehearing in the Appellate Court, First District. The motion was denied the very same day without briefing, deliberation, or apparent consideration.
This rapid disposition undermines the principle that litigants are entitled to meaningful review, particularly in matters involving fundamental rights and allegations of long-term harassment and misconduct.
Appellant now seeks discretionary review by the Illinois Supreme Court to ensure adherence to due process, equal protection, and judicial integrity.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
Constitutional Questions of Great Importance – Whether same-day denials of rehearing comport with the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
Conflict with Precedent – Evitts v. Lucey, Griffin v. Illinois, and Illinois cases emphasize meaningful appellate review, not perfunctory denial.
Public Confidence in Judiciary – Appearance of impartiality is critical. Same-day denials erode trust in appellate procedures. See Offutt v. United States.
Unresolved Statewide Question – No clear Illinois precedent exists on whether rehearing petitions must receive deliberative review. Clarification is required.
ARGUMENT
I. SAME-DAY DENIAL VIOLATES DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION.
The Fourteenth Amendment and Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2 guarantee fairness in judicial proceedings. By denying Appellant’s motion within hours of filing, the Appellate Court effectively deprived Appellant of a genuine opportunity for consideration. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985).
II. RULE 367 REQUIRES MEANINGFUL REVIEW, NOT PERFUNCTORY DENIAL.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 367(a) contemplates petitions for rehearing as an opportunity for correction of errors. A same-day denial suggests no meaningful review occurred, conflicting with the rule’s intent.
III. THE APPEARANCE OF JUSTICE DEMANDS THIS COURT’S INTERVENTION.
In Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954), the Court held that justice must satisfy the appearance of justice. When litigants perceive bias or pre-judgment, public confidence is undermined.
IV. THIS CASE PRESENTS AN IMPORTANT STATEWIDE ISSUE.
This Court has emphasized the need for reasoned decisions to preserve judicial integrity. People v. Salem, 2016 IL 118693. The Court should clarify whether Illinois appellate procedure permits same-day denials without substantive review.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant respectfully prays that this Honorable Court:
Grant this Petition for Leave to Appeal under Rule 315;
Accept jurisdiction to review the Appellate Court’s summary denial; and
Grant such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
MY CLIENT: DEVONTE PIPPEN
"I Used to Believe in the System"
I used to believe in the criminal justice system until I endured this madness firsthand. What I’ve experienced is not justice, but a web of cover-ups, delays, and blatant disregard for truth.
I wish I could say Scottie was worth all of this, but he’s not. My civil claim was dismissed, and when I appealed, it was sent back without true consideration. I did everything by the book followed the rules, met the deadlines, respected the process. Scottie was served on December 18, 2024. He failed to respond by January 17, 2025. Those are facts. Yet somehow, despite his default, he walked away untouched.
The amount of effort spent to conceal and bury this case is staggering. Judges colluded, decisions were influenced, and once again, money outweighed truth. It’s exhausting to even speak on it anymore. At this point, I may never see a dime, but the pain goes far beyond money. My son lost his life without accountability. My family has been torn apart. My reputation damaged. My life uprooted all for a man who is not worth the destruction.
As a Black woman in America, I now see clearly that the promise of a fair trial was never meant for me. I can finally stop lying to myself about that.
I believed in justice once. I don’t anymore.
Fuck You and Scottie Punk Bitch Ass
Dear Members of the Judicial Inquiry Board,
I am writing to respectfully bring to your attention a concern regarding the handling of my appeal, Valentine v. Pippen, et al., Appeal No. 1-25-1195, in the Illinois Appellate Court, First District.
On September 3, 2025, I filed a Motion for Rehearing. To my astonishment, I received a denial the very same day. As a self-represented litigant, I am dumbfounded as to how such a filing could be reviewed, considered, and denied so quickly. The speed of the denial raises a serious question about whether my case has been given meaningful judicial review or whether it has been treated with undue priority for rejection.
My concern is not simply about the unfavorable ruling, but about the appearance of fairness and due process. Illinois courts emphasize that litigants must have confidence that filings are given thoughtful consideration. When a Motion for Rehearing is denied within hours of its submission, it undermines the appearance of impartiality and raises legitimate doubts about whether equal justice is being administered.
I am in the process of filing a Petition for Leave to Appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, but I also believe it is appropriate to bring this issue to the attention of the Judicial Inquiry Board to ensure that no impropriety, bias, or unfair practice is occurring in my case.
I respectfully request that your office review this matter and advise whether further investigation is warranted.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Chyvette A. Valentine
Plaintiff–Appellant, Pro Se
Wednesday, September 3, 2025
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
