Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

July 13, 2024

Bridget Bittman’s civil suit slowly going down in flames…

By John Kraft & Kirk Allen

On December 12, 2014


Orland Park Public Library District’s public relations employee, Bridget Bittman’s personal civil suit against Megan Fox, Kevin DuJan, and others appears to be a weak attempt at silencing critics of the library’s stance to not filter internet access and refusing to block child pornography from the public library.

A Partial Motion to Dismiss was filed this week by the Attorney for Fox and DuJan, asking the Court to dismiss Counts 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12.

The below is a copy of the Memorandum in Support of the Motion, with the extra pages removed for easier reading.


[gview file=””]


All of our article on the Orland Park Public Library are here.

OPPLdismisspic (WinCE)


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


  • ECWDogs
    Posted at 10:16h, 12 December Reply

    Bridget Bittman’s civil suit slowly going down in flames…

  • SafeLibraries
    Posted at 10:17h, 12 December Reply

    RT @ECWDogs: Bridget Bittman’s civil suit slowly going down in flames…

  • SafeLibraries
    Posted at 10:20h, 12 December Reply

    “@ECWDogs: Bridget Bittman’s civil suit slowly going down in flames…”

    #fightfair #TeamHarpy #libchat #OrlandPark

  • SafeLibraries
    Posted at 10:28h, 12 December Reply

    “@ECWDogs: Bridget Bittman’s civil suit slowly going down in flames…” @IllLibraryAssoc @OIF @US_IMLS @FCC #childporn

  • joesteals
    Posted at 11:15h, 12 December Reply

    Bridget Bittman’s civil suit slowly going down in flames…

  • Rose
    Posted at 13:56h, 12 December Reply

    How is a motion to dismiss that has not been ruled on yet “going down in flames”? The first step to fighting ANY lawsuit is to try and get it dismissed. Obviously they aren’t going to admit to everything. By the way, I also wouldn’t call people raising over four thousand dollars in support of her going down in flames either. How much did Megan raise on her “campaign”?

    • jmkraft
      Posted at 14:17h, 12 December Reply

      You have your opinion, I have mine.

      • Rose
        Posted at 14:52h, 12 December Reply

        That’s great but you didn’t even answer any of my questions.

      • Anonymous
        Posted at 18:27h, 12 December Reply

        I would like to hear your opinion on SLAPP suits. It’s my understanding that Bittman will be forced to pay the attorneys’ fees for Megan, Kevin, and the other people named in the suit. She’s a public official suing because she does not want people reporting on her bad behavior and her actions in silencing critics of the child porn in that library and the other lawbreaking going on. Isn’t she in jeopardy of having to pay all the legal bills for this and penalties too?

    • Mitch
      Posted at 15:10h, 12 December Reply

      This is why no one takes them seriously. They make outlandish claims, say they an opinion just like yours, then watch as 90% of their claims quickly go down in flames.

      • jmkraft
        Posted at 15:14h, 12 December Reply

        Since none of our claims have ever gone down in flames, you must be referring to bittman and the OPPL board, and yes their claims are most certainly going down in flames and the donators hopped right on that flaming boat. I have confidence that the right to free speech will prevail.

        • Mitch
          Posted at 15:47h, 12 December Reply

          There’s a very low percentage of complaints to the government regarding this board that have been upheld. So, those all went down in flames. Quickly.

          • jmkraft
            Posted at 15:53h, 12 December

            NONE of them have been dismissed, so I don’t know what you are talking about. The AG takes forever, the court cases against this board has them caving on every issue except one. They have been ruled against by the AG and will soon be ruled against by a Judge. So please provide this data on the “very low percentage” being upheld…

      • Anonymous
        Posted at 17:49h, 12 December Reply

        I’ve been following this matter with the OPPL board. The Attorney General ruled that the Board broke the law on 1/20/14 when they prohibited public comment about the child porn and other things going on in the library. The AG ruled that the Board broke the law again on 2/12/14 when it held an illegal meeting and prohibited public comment. The AG ruled that the Board broke the law again on 3/17/14 when it illegally tried to “ratify and affirm” the illegal things it did on 2/12/14. The AG also ruled that the Board had been violating the Freedom of Information Act and ordered them to produce things they were refusing to produce since October 2013. Then the Board was sued in civil court chancery division for other FOIA and OMA violations and those suits are working their way to court now. This Board has violated both the FOIA and the Open Meetings Act repeatedly and has been busted on it repeatedly.

    • Anonymous
      Posted at 17:15h, 12 December Reply

      Well, Rose, it looks like Megan and Kevin were able to hire Kirkland Ellis to defend them. That’s the best law firm in the world. Bittman is represented by a firm named Mudd. Her lawyers’ name is “Mudd”. That’s hilarious.

      • Rose
        Posted at 00:29h, 13 December Reply

        Uh, her lawyer’s name is Meghan Nugent.

        • jmkraft
          Posted at 07:11h, 13 December Reply

          Any relation to Ted?

        • beelady23
          Posted at 17:16h, 16 December Reply

          Uh Rose, Meghan Nugent is with Mudd Law firm. Seems odd you don’t know that. Very easy to Google.

          • Rose
            Posted at 23:40h, 17 December

            The statement is still incorrect regard.ess; her lawyer’s name is Nugent and not Mudd

      • beelady23
        Posted at 00:32h, 13 December Reply

        Oh Lord no. That’s ridiculous. Mudd? That has to be a joke. Are you kidding? This does not bode well for Miss Bittman. I just read this thing and it seems embarrassing. I also went to that Sassy Plants page and I don’t get it. Why does she think that’s supposed to impersonate her? All I see is jokes about plants. I saw a while ago that people had made a page called “People who hate Megan Fox” where they had rape threats against her and were saying horrible things like she should die. That guy up above “Super Internet whatever I’ve seen your page too and it’s sick. If anyone should be sued it’s you people that do that terrible stuff. How hypocritical of you to be on here, sir (or whoever you are) crowing about this silly woman suing someone for having a joke facebook page when you have a page that encourages RAPE and violence and defamation against Ms. Fox.

        But some lawyer named “Mudd” is suing Sassy Plants for joking about ugly plants? This has to be a joke. I think the lawyers should look at that super internet library friends guy.

        • Rose
          Posted at 08:26h, 14 December Reply

          Problem it it’s obvious it’s Meg behind Sassy Plants because she posts a lot of the same content to that page at the same time she posts it to hers. Halloween Parade, Field Museum, etc.

          • beelady23
            Posted at 23:37h, 17 December

            “Rose”, do you seriously think a page mocking plants is somehow illegal? How do you explain that when there are pages dedicated to advocating and describing in great detail violence against Megan Fox? None of those can even be removed from facebook. I saw those pages. The stuff on there was sick. They posted photos of her with photoshopped pornographic images and said she should be raped. They posted photos of her children, a map to her house with instructions to shoot her in the head…and to my knowledge she didn’t sue any of those people (of whom you probably are) because it’s actually legal to behave that way. But you think a judge is going to look at funny pictures of plants and that silly library woman as “defamation”? You clearly don’t know what defamation is. While she’s at it this Bitman person should sue Google for posting all those photos she put online under her name. Every photo you ever put online is available on Google. Perhaps Google is the one to sue. So why don’t you go back to posting death and rape threats against a mother of 3. You’re good at that.

          • Mitch
            Posted at 08:16h, 20 December

            Huh. Now we know what their opinions re: “going down in flames” are worth:

            : Motion hearing held. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim 14 , motion for extension of time to file answer or otherwise plead 18 and motion to join 21 are moot. Plaintiff is given leave to file a first amended complaint by 1/8/15. Defendants shall answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint by 2/5/15. Status hearing set for 2/12/15 at 9:00 a.m. Notice mailed by judge’s staff (ntf, ) (Entered: 12/19/2014)

          • jmkraft
            Posted at 09:41h, 20 December

            Thanks for the update.
            What happened, it appears, is that Plaintiff asked for leave to file an amended complaint. When that was approved, any Motions to Dismiss were moot simply because they were based on the allegations of the original complaint, and for no other reason. In other words, the original complaint is also moot when an amended complaint is filed.

  • Internet super best friends of the library
    Posted at 15:08h, 12 December Reply

    What about the remaining counts?

    • Anonymous
      Posted at 18:54h, 12 December Reply

      It appears those will be addressed after these 7 are dismissed because they were not filed correctly. The last page of the motion to dismiss shows that the remaining 5 counts will be addressed after this motion is ruled on. I’ve never heard of a lawyer filing a suit with the majority of counts being dismissed like this. I looked up Bittman’s lawyer and that woman only passed the bar in 2013 and this appears to be one of her first cases.

  • SafeLibraries
    Posted at 16:03h, 12 December Reply

    RT @joesteals: Bridget Bittman’s civil suit slowly going down in flames…

  • SafeLibraries
    Posted at 16:31h, 12 December Reply

    “Slowly going down in flames.” That opinion is arrived at by reading the motion to dismiss and the complaint. Basically, the motion points out, accurately, that many of the counts of the complaint have alleged the existence of elements of various offenses but have not pointed to any evidence tending to support those elements. None. Not just weak evidence, literally no evidence whatsoever.

    Complaint allegations alleging elements of various offenses need to provide proof of the existence of facts that support such allegations. Such proof is completely absent, and that is basically the argument of the motion to dismiss.

    If you read the motion to dismiss and read the complaint, you may see such proof is completely absent. John called that “slowly going down in flames.” That’s his opinion. But if you make allegations in federal court and do not provide any proof to support your allegations, then “slowly going down in flames” sounds about right to me. Or maybe “slowly going down” is more accurate and the “flames” will comes later. Since there is no evidence to support the allegations of certain counts in the complaint, there is nothing for the judge to decide, and the counts will be dismissed with prejudice, meaning they can not be raised again.

    By the way, the reason the complaint produced no evidence to support the allegations sought to be dismissed is that no such evidence exists, else the attorney for the plaintiff would have included such evidence, gladly.

    The library has in the past fabricated evidence, specifically the library director’s affidavit in support of the failed claim that Lincoln’s Birthday is not a holiday in Illinois, but I have seen little evidence that the plaintiff herself, as opposed to the library, has fabricated evidence. Misrepresented it, perhaps, but not fabricated it.

    Remember, this whole thing arose after a number of people including myself reported on the homophobia of the plaintiff or reported on others reporting on the homophobia of the plaintiff. People who are giving money to the plaintiff are supporting a homophobe in seeking to silence those exposing her hateful words and actions.

    I know the trolls here are trolling/attacking. But at some point in this process I hope they eventually wake up and stop supporting the homophobe and thereby homophobia. Right now they are buying the propaganda, but at some point you have to be honest.

    So the people giving money to the plaintiff are giving money to a homophobe.

    All the above is my opinion, of course.

    • SafeLibraries
      Posted at 18:58h, 19 December Reply

      “Bridget Bittman’s civil suit slowly going down in flames” is the title. I have new information. I’ll not discuss legal matters now, however. Just know in my opinion the latest information I have tells me Bridget Bittman’s civil suit is indeed slowly going down in flames.

  • Anonymous
    Posted at 19:19h, 12 December Reply

    The other thing I don’t understand about this lawsuit is the Sassy Plants stuff. I don’t see how Bittman claims that Sassy Plants is damaging to her. It’s a Facebook page with pictures of plants on it. I think it’s stupid but it’s clearly a joke page with jokes about plants. Because she does not like something she thinks she can sue people for it? I don’t get that.

    • Rose
      Posted at 00:27h, 13 December Reply

      Theyve posted pictures of her on there before to insinuate its her page

      • jmkraft
        Posted at 07:10h, 13 December Reply

        So a picture insinuates it’s her page?

        • Rose
          Posted at 08:24h, 14 December Reply

          Yes, thank you for repeating exactly what I said.

      • beelady23
        Posted at 23:43h, 17 December Reply

        So, when Super internet whatever posts photos of Megan Fox that they’ve photoshopped with pornographic images and pictures of her children with maps to her house and rape threats…that doesn’t concern you. But pictures of this stupid woman that show up on google that she posted herself with nothing vile or vulgar photoshopped on them…just her among some plants…that DOES concern you? I just want to get it straight, girl. You’re ok with rape threats like, “You can call the police but they can’t unrape you” against Megan Fox but you are not ok with a photo of Bratman hiding out in some foliage? Only one of these should be illegal, according to you, and you are picking Bratman hiding in a bush? Just for clarification…I don’t want to misinterpret what you are saying “Rose”

  • SafeLibraries
    Posted at 08:37h, 13 December Reply

    #TeamHarpy: Motion to dismiss in defamation suit v @intolerantfox: MT @ECWDogs: “Bridget Bittman’s civil suit…”

  • Mitch
    Posted at 19:28h, 05 February Reply

    So I guess this is going down in flames on March 15 now? Or not …

    • jmkraft
      Posted at 22:20h, 05 February Reply

      Status hearing on March 5 is the last info I have. Plaintiff filed amended complaint…

    • Rose
      Posted at 03:01h, 16 February Reply


Post A Comment