Category: Action in Trover



State of Illinois United States of America County of Du Page
In the 18th Judicial Circuit Court
Village of Lombard,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Gardenia C. Hung and Robert S. Hung, Trustees of the Trust Agreement Designated as the Roberto Hung Supplemental Care Trust, Jeffrey D. Papendick, a tax-purchaser, and non-record claimants and unknown users
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))))))))))
Case No.:2007CH001284 Consolidated
Case No.:2006OV005982, LO25448NT;
Case No.:2006OV005983, LO25449NT;
Case No.:2006OV004446, LO12418NT; LO12419NT
NOTICE OF FILING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT WITH A SECOND OBJECTION TO THE SAME PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DEMOLITION AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Attn. Judge Ken Popejoy, Chancery Division To:Circuit Court Clerk
18th Judicial Circuit Court Mr. Chris Kachiroubas
505 North County Farm Road 505 North County Farm Road
Wheaton, Illinois 60189-0707 USA Wheaton, IL 60187 USA
CC: Law Firm of Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, Ltd.
Mr. Howard C. Jablecki, et al. Attn. Mr. Joseph E. Birkett
Attorneys for the Plaintiff Illinois State’s Attorney
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1660, 503 North County Farm Road
Chicago, Illinois 60606-2903, USA Wheaton, Illinois 60187 USA
Tel. 312-984-6400; To Whom It May Concern

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT WITH A SECOND OBJECTION TO THE SAME PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DEMOLITION AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Now comes Gardenia C. Hung, as Defendant Pro Se, to reinstate all of the Defendants’ responses and supporting arguments in this Motion for Reconsideration to Dismiss and Strike the Verified Complaint with a Second Objection to the same Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief, on legal constitutional grounds upholding the Illinois homeowner’s right to repair Lombard real estate property pursuant to the Constitution of the United States of America, the State of Illinois Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Victims of Crime Act, Illinois Human Rights Act, Housing and Urban Development Act, Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.; 815 ILCS 505/2 et seq., Unlawful Prohibited Practices; 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq., Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 USC §45 et seq.
Counsel Howard C. Jablecki’s response for the Plaintiff disregards U.S. constitutional issues in this legal action, since in the State of Illinois, Lombard homeowners have constitutional rights to repair Lombard Historical real estate property in the County of Du Page, United States of America. Mr. Jablecki is subject to perjury upon stating that, “In this case, Defendant Hung has not provided adequate grounds for this court to reconsider its denial of the motion to dismiss…” “Defendant Hung has alleged no newly discovered facts, no change in the law, and no error in this Court’s application of the law aside from its use of “fancy legal terms”. (Village of Lombard v. Gardenia C. Hung and Robert S. Hung, et al., Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Dismiss, Page 3).
For the record, Defendants petition to reinstate all legally filed evidence, as follow:
1. Defendants’ Response/Answer to Summons. Counterpoint: At Issue Legal Memorandum in Opposition to the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief to Support the Defendants’ Compulsory Counterclaims to Setoff/Offset the Verified Complaint from Plaintiff on legal grounds for “action in trover”, criminal conversion of property, consumer service fraud, breach of the Fair Housing Partnership Resolution Contract and Real Estate Liability for Lombard Old Houses.
2. Affidavit of Damages in Excess of $50,000.
3. Amended Defendants’ Response/Answer to Summons. Counterpoint: At Issue Legal Memorandum in Opposition to the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief to Support the Defendants’ Compulsory Counterclaims in the sum of $2,000,000, two million, to Setoff/Offset the Verified Complaint from Plaintiff on legal grounds for “action in trover”, criminal conversion of property, consumer service fraud, breach of the Fair Housing Partnership Resolution Contract and Real Estate Liability for Lombard Old Houses.
4. Abridged to 10 Pages, Defendants’ Response/Answer to Summons. Counterpoint: At Issue Legal Memorandum in Opposition to the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief.
5. Defendants’ Motion for Discovery, Exhibit A, to Petition Attorney’s Fees under §10(A)C of the Consumer Fraud Act for “action in trover”, in the sum of $32,497.41
6. Defendants’ Amended Petition, Exhibit B, in Motion to Accept All Legal Expenses in the sum of $33,725.41 for Reimbursement Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137 and §10(A)C of the Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.
7. Defendants’ Combined §2-615 Motion to Dismiss and §2-619 Motion to Strike the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137.
8. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY, EXHIBIT C, AS EVIDENCE FOR CONTRACTS A-1, B-1, AND C-1, AS PROOF OF PROPOSED PLANS FOR RESTORATION, REPAIR CONSTRUCTION, REMODELING, AND REHABILITATION IN ORDER TO BRING THE LOMBARD HISTORICAL BRICK BUNGALOW INTO COMPLIANCE WITH MUNICIPAL BUILDING CODE.
9. SUBPOENA REQUEST FOR PLAINTIFF TO PRODUCE ALL HOUSEHOLD KEYS
BELONGING TO DEFENDANTS, ET AL. AT 502 S. WESTMORE-MEYERS ROAD, LOMBARD, ILLINOIS 60148-3028, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
10. 1993-2007 DAMAGES AND LOSSES AT THE HUNG FAMILY REAL ESTATE AT
502 SOUTH WESTMORE-MEYERS ROAD, LOMBARD, DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS 60148-3028
MEMO OVERVIEW REPORT BY GARDENIA C. HUNG, M.A., DAUGHTER OF THE LATE MR.
ROBERT HUNG, J.D.
11. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR OBJECTION TO THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DEMOLITION
AND FOR INJUCTIVE RELIEF.
12. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE THE VERIFIED
COMPLAINT WITH A SECOND OBJECTION TO THE SAME PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT
FOR DEMOLITION AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

Plaintiff’s response states improper opinions, contrary-to-fact statements, and fails to consider all of the newly discovered evidence presented and filed in conformity to proof before this court, along with all the supporting arguments reported by U.S. law enforcement agencies and the State of Illinois on behalf of the Defendants, included as a Second Objection to the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief.

Defendants hereby reinstate all the legal documentation and supporting arguments presented to date before this court, in this Motion for Reconsideration to Dismiss and Strike the Verified Complaint with a Second Objection to the same Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief. For the record, Defendants have submitted into evidence as Exhibit C, Contracts A-1, B-1, and C-1, underwritten by ZSC INSURANCE RESTORATION SERVICE, LLC., P.O. Box 56553, Chicago, Illinois 60656-0553, ZeesGroup.com, in conformity to proof of the proposed plans for Restoration, Renovation, Repair Construction, Remodeling, and Rehabilitation presented during November 2006 and January 2007, by Gardenia C. Hung, in order to comply with the Village of Lombard Municipal Building Code Violations caused by the Plaintiff in this legal ‘action in trover’ and ‘conversion’ of the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow owned by the Hung Family in Du Page County, Illinois, United States of America.
The Hung Family is seeking monetary compensation for Damages and Losses to include Contracts for Special Disaster Restoration Construction Repair Services in the sum of $281,830US contracted and underwritten by ZSC Insurance Restoration Services LLC for repair at the expense of the Village of Lombard Community and DuPage County.
Plaintiff’s Counsel Howard C. Jablecki presents false arguments based on improper opinions and hearsay, not well supported in fact to justify condemnation, demolition, and injunctive relief without affording to the Defendants the option to repair with due process and just payment in “cash” for compensation at a fair market value upon sale of the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow owned by the Hung Family, under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of Illinois. Defendants as Lombard homeowners have the right to repair this Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow in Du Page County, Illinois, United States of America.
Counsel Howard C. Jablecki’s allegations for demolition and for injunctive relief do not state a public purpose or present specific plans for reuse of the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow by the Village of Lombard, et al. The Verified Complaint fails to prove that the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow is “Unfit for Human Habitation”, since the Hung Family has been Lombard resident homeowners since 1993 to date, in 2008, for the last 15 years now.
Consequently, Defendants have petitioned to redress grievances as victims of crime in the Village of Lombard, Du Page County, Illinois, based on constitutional grounds, as follow:
Section 11-31-1 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/11-31-1) pertaining to demolition by a municipality is unconstitutional because it does not allow the Defendants, as Lombard resident homeowners in Du Page County, Illinois, the right to repair the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow at 502 S. Westmore-Meyers Road, owned by the Hung Family. In City of Aurora v. Meyer, 38 Ill. 2d. 131 (1967), the Supreme Court construed the statute as meaning that, “if the specific defects that render a building dangerous and unsafe ‘may readily be remedied by repair’, demolition should not be ordered without giving the owners a reasonable opportunity to make the repairs.” Furthermore, in the previous Supreme Court Rule 23 (166 Ill. 2d R. 23) order (Village of Lake Villa v. Stokovich, No. 2-00-0943 (2001), the Illinois Supreme Court in the exercise of its supervisory authority directed the presiding judge to vacate the judgment in the Circuit Court of Lake County ordering demolition and to address the Defendants that Section 11-31-1 is unconstitutional. Defendants assert that ordering demolition without giving a homeowner a reasonable time to repair her/his property without considering the cost constitutes an unlawful infringement upon rights of real estate ownership and/or a due process violation;
Section 11-31-1 constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative power in the Village of Lombard, Du Page County, Illinois, in the United States of America;
Plaintiff and Counsel, Howard C. Jablecki et al. are abusing the Court’s discretion in “scienter” with guilty knowledge, as accomplices for direct cause of action for Damages and Losses to the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow, as noted on record, and by non-disclosure and/or exclusion of key evidence leading to the current damages, losses, and disrepair of the subject property;
This Court is abusing the Defendants, as Lombard resident homeowners, by admitting the Plaintiff’s speculation as improper opinions, not well grounded nor supported by facts of evidence for restoration and preservation of the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow, already on record to comply with provisions of the municipal building code;
Keith Steiskal’s finding on May 5, 2006 as stated, does not validate that the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow is dangerous and unsafe, requiring demolition under Section 11-31-1. Keith Steiskal’s “improper opinions and hearsay” under Section 11-31-1 is against the manifested weight of evidence and the Defendants’ proposed restoration plans which have sought alternative remedy and relief in the form of bringing the subject property into compliance;
This Court has erred in denying the Defendants’ Combined §2-615 Motion to Dismiss and §2-619 Motion to Strike the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief, based on the presiding judge’s “improper opinions and hearsay” about “improper language” and “fancy legal terms”, abuse of the legal process, malicious prosecution, “scienter”, negligence per se, consumer service fraud, and obstruction of justice;
The municipal ordinance violations alleged in Counts I, II, and II for Injunctive Relief do not apply to the subject property, nor are these allegations supported or warranted by existing laws under the Constitution of the United States of America, the State of Illinois Constitution, Bill of Rights, Victims of Crime Act, Human Rights Act, Housing and Urban Development Act, Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., 815 ILCS 505/2 et seq., Unlawful Prohibited Practices; 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq., Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 USC §45 et seq., and
The Court’s order on Monday, November 29, 2007 by Judge Kenneth Popejoy, based on “improper use of language and fancy legal terms” is still so deficient as to require a Judicial Review for Reconsideration pursuant to legal, constitutional grounds under the Constitution of the United States, and the State of Illinois Bill of Rights.
Defendants hereby present a Second Objection to the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief in this petition to redress grievances as victims of crime. Please take notice that assertion by the Defendants of Lombard homeowners’ right to repair is protected under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Sections 2 and 15 of the Bill of Rights of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1979, art. I, §§2,15) which upon review supports the constitutionality of a statute de novo (Miller v. Rosenberg, 196 Ill. 2d 50, 57 (2001).
Wherefore, Defendants reinstate Combined §2-615 Motion to Dismiss and §2-619 Motion to Strike the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137, as noted.
For the record, Plaintiff as the Village of Lombard et al. has “defrauded”
the real estate investment of the late Mr. Roberto Hung, and daughter, Gardenia C. Hung, et al. by direct cause of action in conversion of the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow into a distressed real estate property as an “access to crime” in the Village of Lombard, Du Page County, Illinois, through conspiracy, heinous/hate crimes, damages, losses, disrepair, and personal injury, to include the murder of the late Mr. Roberto Hung. Consequently, Plaintiff owes the Defendants the obligation, the duty, and service to repair the subject property, damaged by Negligence Per Se and breach of duty, on legal grounds for “action in trover”, criminal “conversion” of real property owned by Gardenia C. Hung, to include consumer service fraud.
For the record, as noted on the Defendants’ pleadings filed in this court, the Village of Lombard and DuPage County, have contributed directly and indirectly to the extensive structural damages and losses to the Hung Family real estate property at 502 S. Westmore Avenue and Washington Boulevard in Lombard, DuPage County, Illinois, U.S.A.
Plaintiff’s allegations are not well supported in fact to justify condemnation, demolition, and injunctive relief without stating a public purpose or presenting specific plans for the reuse of the property. Thus, the Verified Complaint is incomplete, inconclusive, and invalid. The subject property owned by the Hung Family is not a dangerous, unsafe building nor a health hazard or safety risk to the community.
In conclusion, Defendants have reinstated and re-submitted a Second Amended Response to the Verified Complaint in this Motion for Reconsideration to Dismiss the Verified Complaint with a Second Objection to Demolition and Injunctive Relief, thus presenting valid constitutional arguments for historical preservation and restoration, remodeling, and repair construction of the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow owned by the Hung Family, at the expense of the Plaintiff, also known as the Village of Lombard, et al., All Employees, accountable and liable for all damages, losses, and disrepair to the subject property as a direct cause of action, in access to crime by the Lombard Police Department.
WHEREBY, Defendants pray for remedy and relief to sustain this Motion as a Second Objection to the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief, based upon constitutional grounds, as noted, with the proposed plans for restoration and historical preservation of the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow owned by the Hung Family, at the cost and expense of the Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Defendants also pray to sustain Combined §2-615 Motion to Dismiss and §2-619 Motion to Strike the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137, upon judicial review for reconsideration with justice, equity, and fairness, under God. Defendants petition for additional relief and financial remedy in affording the Defendants the right to repair Illinois real estate property, as follow for:
(1) GENERAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES IN THE SUM OF $123,200, AS NOTED IN CONTRACT C, IN CONFORMITY TO PROOF;
(2) OTHER SPECIAL DISASTER CONSTRUCTION REPAIR DAMAGES AND LOSSES IN THE SUM OF $92,480, AS EVIDENCED IN CONTRACT B, IN COMFORMITY TO PROOF.
(3) AND DEFENDANTS PRO SE ALSO PRAY FOR THE COMPENSATION OF SUCH OTHER AND ADDITIONAL DISASTER RESTORATION CONSTRUCTION DAMAGES AND LOSSES IN THE SUM OF $66,150, ITEMIZED IN CONTRACT A, IN CONFORMITY TO PROOF, AND FOR FURTHER REMEDY AND RELIEF AS THE COURT DEEMS JUST, FAIR, EQUITABLE, AND PROPER IN THIS CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISASTER RESTORATION CONSTRUCTION CAUSED DIRECTLY BY PLAINTIFF, THE CITY OF LOMBARD ET AL., IN THE TOTAL SUM OF $281,830.
Furthermore, Defendants also pray for any other remedy and relief provided by this court with due process and just payment in “cash” for compensation at a fair market value upon sale of the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow owned by the Hung Family; as this Court deems just, fair, and equitable due to family tragedy, hardship, and poverty as victims of crime, under the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of Illinois Constitution, Bill of Rights, with justice, under God.

Respectfully submitted by,

Gardenia C. Hung, M.A., PRO SE
502 S. Westmore-Meyers Road
Lombard, Illinois 60148-3028
United States of America

VERIFICATION

Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, to the best of my ability, so help me God.

Dated on January 25, 2008,
Signed by:

_________________________ Gardenia C. Hung, M.A.
In the County of Du Page, State of Illinois, United States of America

Advertisements

Part I, Courtesy Article “De Laudibus Legum Angliae” on the 400th Anniversary of the Jamestowne Settlement in Virginia , 1607-2007 USA
Courtesy Article: “De Laudibus Legum Angliae”–“In Praise of the Laws of England”–Quote from Sir John Fortescue (c.1395-c.1477)”Common Law: Past, Present, Future, and Beyond…” written by Gardenia C. Hung, M.A.,B.A.

The legal grounds of common law are based “in its beginnings lost in the mist of the history of northern Europe and Scandinavia, touched by the influence of the Roman Empire and the history of the English peoples who are frequently invaded by cross-cultures who remained, intermarried with the local citizens and greatly affected their customs and habits.”

While the Romans ruled Britain for almost 400 years, the development of the Justinian code and of the Roman law was still 100 years away before they left England . During 600 A.D., the English were converted to Christianity and canon law became established in England . Canon law, as a judicial system of the church, has been a significant factor in English legal history and has acquired a name all of its own–equity.

For many years, two (2) parallel courts existed in England , courts of equity, which were free to apply principles of conscience, and common law courts. The “common law” is so called because it was “commonly” applied throughout the kingdom of England in the King’s Court.The last successful cross-cultural invasion of England was by the Normans over the Saxons in 1066 A.D., fought over the Battle of Hastings.

Since the 11th century A.D., the English were able to develop their own legal system in a typical English manner–they avoided the method of trying to write down all known laws on paper.” The English won the protection of their own basic civil rights from their rulers, as noted in the Magna Carta endorsed and signed by King John in 1215. From that time onwards, the English applied justice, equity, and fairness in the developing courts, with trials by jury for contests between individual citizens disputing over property, personal injuries and contracts.

At other times, acts of Parliament defined specific crimes and prescribed penalties. Judges and members of Parliament established British English laws gradually by legal precedents. The result is then what is known still today as “common law”: that is to say, custom, tradition, decisions by judges in specific cases and acts of Parliament.This legal system based on “common law” has been well established for the last 400 years in the United States of America , between 1215 A.D. and 1607 A.D., when the British arrived and settled in Historical Jamestowne, Virginia.

For the American colonists, legal experience differed according to the background of the settlers. Since lawyers were few at the time, important cases were heard and decided in London , England . For the last 400 years, “common law” has become the most important root of the American legal system founded on solid judicial grounds from England and imported to the United States of America , during the 17th century through the 21st century and beyond…

Common law has been practiced throughout the kingdom by the King’s Court as long as the English languages has been used by the Angles, the Jutes, the Saxons, and the Normans, influenced by Latin and Greek, as well as by the Celts–the Welsh, the Irish, the Scots, and the Cornish–all Gaelic-speaking tribes who were natives of the British Isles before the English settled in the United Kingdom.The Angles and the Jutes invaded England from Denmark . The Saxons traveled from Saxony which is now known as Germany . And the Normans sailed across the English Channel from France …

Following the Saxon invasion from Germany , the word “Anglii” and ” Anglia ” became part of the language as used by the Celts to refer to the invaders. One hundred and fifty years after the first raids, King Aethelbert of Kent was named “rex Anglorum” by Pope Gregory. Since then, these people have been called “Angelcynn” (Angle-kin) and their language was “Englisc”. By 1000 Anno Domini, the country was generally known as “Englaland”, the land of Angles .The development of the English language moved the practice of common law throughout the invasions of England and the cross-cultural revolutions which took place before and after the year 1066 A.D., marked by the Battle of Hastings, fought between King Harold II and King William I.

According to “The Story of English” by Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert McNeil, the Mother tongue known as English was brought to Britain by Germanic tribes, the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes, influenced by Latin and Greek when St. Augustine and his followers converted England to Christianity. The English language has been subtly enriched by the Danes, and finally transformed by the Normans . French-speaking William I of Normandy , also known as the Conqueror who won the battle of Hastings over Harold II in 1066 A.D.

In “The History of the English-speaking Peoples”, Sir Winston Churchill stated: “We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man, which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the habeas corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law, find their expression in the Declaration of Independence, (of the United States of America)”.

During the first week of May 2007, Queen Elizabeth II and Sir Philip, Duke of Edinburgh were hosted by President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush during their visit to Historic Jamestowne, Virginia , Kentucky , and Washington , D.C. They celebrated the 400th Anniversary of the British settlement since 1607, when the first English settlers arrived to the British Colonial fort, sited by Captain John Smith and “Matoakah” Pocahontas, Chief Powhatan’s Native American Indian Princess, and African-American slaves in North America and Canada, during the 17th century.

An example of “common law” is the concept of “conversion” which defines an intentional tort to personal property (same as “chattel”) where the wrongdoers’ unjustified, willful interference with the “chattel” deprives the owner of the possession of such “chattel”. The owner must have actual possession or immediate right to possession since the time of the wrongful misuse, alteration, or abuse occurred.

Interference in common law “conversion” means the exercise of dominion over another’s chattel. Intent to dispossess the owner of the chattel is not a required element of the claim. In other words, intentional removal of another’s chattel under the mistaken belief that it belongs to the wrongdoer, does not relieve the wrongdoer of liability under conversion.

Stealing something from someone else is one form of conversion. However, conversion is not limited to theft. Conversion can also be accomplished by moving, transferring, discarding, hiding, vandalizing or destroying another person’s chattel. Merely using another person’s chattel can be grounds for conversion in certain cases.Legal remedy for conversion is usually in the form of damages restitution equal to the fair market value of the chattel at the time of conversion.

Conversion is an interference with another’s ownership of property. It is a general intent tort, not a specific intent tort. That means that the intent to take or otherwise deal with the property is enough to support the claim. The standard remedy and relief for conversion is a judgement for damages in an amount equal to the fair market value of the property. Punitive damages are also possible to be assessed because conversion is an intentional tort.

To be continued…

Sources:

From the Law Library of my father, Mr. Roberto Hung, J.D.You and the Law. A Practical Guide to Everyday Law and How It Affects You and Your Family. Advisory Editor Henry V. Poor, Associate Dean of Yale University Law School, 1967-1972. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., New York , 1971.Family Legal Guide. A Complete Encyclopedia of Law for the Layman. Reader’s Digest Association, New York , 1971.Periodical, “The Week”, May 18, 2007 on the “400th Anniversary of Jamestowne , Virginia ”.Periodical, “Newsweek”. Ideas, “Ties of Blood and History: Sir Winston Churchill”, February 26, 2007.McCrum, Robert et al. The Story of English. BBC Public Television Series.The Illinois Sheriff, Spring 2005. “Roots. A Historical Perspective of the Office of the Sheriff”. DeKalb County Sheriff Roger Scott.Fortescue, John (1394-1477). De Laudibus Legum Angliae. In Praise of the Laws of England .http://www.answers.com/topic/commonlawCanada’s Court System, Department of Justice Publication.American Heritage Dictionary.Village of Lombard, et al. vs. Hung et al., Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court, 505 North County Farm Road, Wheaton, IL 60187, County of Du Page, State of Illinois, United States of America.Churchill, Winston. A History of the English-Speaking Peoples.Roberts, Andrew. A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1901.
Courtesy Article

Part II: Intentional tort–Conversion and trespass as “action in trover”

An intentional tort arises from deliberate invasion of another person’s rights, causing injury without just cause or excuse. For instance, the new neighbor drives backward into the owner’s fence posts between the adjoining driveway and damages the existing fence on the first moving day into their new home. The owner of the damaged fence posts can sue the new neighbor for repeatedly driving into the owner’s fence posts with a van, a lawnmower, or deliberate carelessness.

Intentional torts include interference with a person’s freedom of movement, defamation of character (libel and slander), invasion of privacy, interference with property rights, misuse of the legal process, fraud, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Trespass is a tort, a civil wrong because it interferes with a person’s property rights. For instance, the new neighbor’s son jumps the fence adjoining the owner’s property repeatedly without permission. Or, the Lombard Police Department in Du Page County, Illinois allows intruders, strangers, terrorists, and criminal repeat offenders to jump the owner’s fence into the backyard, under approval of the Village of Lombard, Town Hall staff, and the Village Manager, Bill Lichter, President Bill Mueller, including Trustee for District 5 Ken Florey, and others, without the authorization of the Hung Family as owners of the real estate property.

Common law “tort” action features unreasonable interference with the interests of another. For instance, intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort. Case-in-point, John Carpenter, the neighbor calls the Lombard Police Department on the Hung Family when the daughter arrives one evening, last summer 2006, and walks into the backyard—there was nothing wrong in the backyard, at the house, or with the daughter of the late Mr. Roberto Hung, J.D.

An injured person may sue anyone who commits a tort against him/her to collect damages—money to compensate for the wrong.

Trespass is an unlawful intrusion that interferes with someone else’s possession of property. A trespass gives the property owner the right to bring a civil lawsuit and collect money damages for the interference and for any harm caused. Some states in the U.S.A. have laws that make trespass a crime and prosecute illicit access entry into property with punitive fines, sanctions, and imprisonment. Generally, a trespass is committed on real property (real estate or land and everything that is attached to it), but a trespass can also be to personal property (all other forms of property) as well.

Criminal trespass is accomplished by violence or tends to be a “breach of peace”. Some statutes consider any unlawful entry on another person’s real estate property as a criminal act. When the trespass involves violence or injury to a person or property, it is always considered criminal, and penalties may be increased for more serious or malicious acts. Criminal trespass is prosecuted in the State of Illinois by punitive fines, sanctions or imprisonment or both.

The standard remedy in an action for trespass to chattels is a judgment for an amount equal to the value of loss or use of the property. Damages from a trespass claim are based on the harm caused to the owner’s property, rather than the general value of the chattel. Under common law, many acts can constitute both “conversion” and “trespass” as “action in trover”.

Conversion as an “action in trover” under English common law is an ancient, historical form of legal action to recover possession of personal property, and its practice to settle disputes, contests, and arguments, has developed our modern sense and interpretation in the application of common law in the 21st century and beyond.

Action in trover is the technical name for a lawsuit to recover damages incurred for a wrongdoer’s “conversion” (wrongful taking, misuse, abuse, alteration or destruction) of personal property belonging to someone else. In trover actions, the measure of damages is normally in proportion to the value of the property at the time of conversion.

Legal “action in trover” is a remedy for conversion or the wrongful appropriation of the owner’s personal property. During the course of the 16th century, “action in trover” developed as a special form of legal action in a case.

Trover damages are measured in proportion to the market value of the property, plus compensation for deprivation of use, and compensation for other losses naturally and proximately caused by the wrongful taking of another’s property. The owner can also recover interest that would have been earned by the money value of the object and any expenses incurred in attempting to recover the property.

Another example of common law is “negligence per se”, that is to say behavioral conduct which is evidence of an unreasonable action (or failure to act) that causes injury to a person or damages to his/her property. Negligence per se, as carelessness in itself, is behavior that falls below the standards set by law for protecting others against risk or harm. As a result of “negligence per se”, anyone who is injured, or whose property is damaged because of someone else’s negligent act or failure to act, is entitled to bring a civil lawsuit against the wrongdoer, for an “action in trover”.

In itself, negligence is a state of mind involving carelessness, forgetfulness, inattentiveness, refusal to perform duties and obligations required by law and professional standards.

In negligence law, a person has an obligation and duty to exercise reasonable care for the physical safety and for the property of others people.

Negligence per se involves “misfeasance” which is to say, the improper doing of an act, and “nonfeasance”, that is to say, the failure to perform the required duty. In cases involving “imputed negligence”, the first person in charge may have a duty to see that the second person in force exercises care in regard to any third party or property. Thus, “imputed negligence” falls upon the first person when the second person fails to perform the duty of care for the third person, “vicariously”. In the same way, “respondeat superior”, in Latin, illustrates a principle of law that holds an employer liable and responsible for anything that an employee does during the course of employment. Case-in-point, the Village of Lombard is responsible for all its employees’ actions and non-actions, at all times.

When a person suffers harm because of someone else’s negligence, the same person can sue the negligent person and make him or her pay for the harm, damages and/or losses caused. Given that the negligent person owed the injured party a duty to use care; that he/she violated that duty by failing to act according to the required standard of care; and that the party incurred injury or that property was damaged as the result of the negligent person.

In the doctrine of “negligence per se”, the violations of statutes by the negligent person creates a case for legal action in itself, by default. In order for this doctrine (of negligence per se) to operate, the statute which has been violated must have been designed to prevent the type of injury or damaged suffered by a victim of crime, abused by another person due to “negligence per se”.

Case-in-point, in the legal action for Village of Lombard v. Hung, et al., the Plaintiff is subject to “negligence per se” for the violations of Illinois statutes pursuant to consumer service fraud, breach of the Fair Housing agreement contract, and Lombard real estate liability for the sale of old houses in Du Page County, Illinois, USA.

Since 1993, in the Village of Lombard, the Hung Family real estate property and all family members, have all been injured, disabled, and damaged due to the Village of Lombard’s failure to provide the duty of care, according to the required standard of care; and the Hung Family members and real estate property have all been victims of crime as a result of “negligence per se” by default in the Village of Lombard, Du Page County, Illinois, USA.

English common law is based on legal court precedents. Each legal cause of action is decided by a judge to establish a precedent which may be used as a guide for other judges to make subsequent decisions. Thus common law is active, dynamic, functional, and constantly evolving in time, upon legal precedents.

Traditionally, English common law was unwritten, “lex non scripta”—not written as a body of law; however, nowadays, there are extensive, historical, and contemporary compilations of the English common law for the 21st century and beyond.

Common law follows natural reason, logic, and man’s sense of justice, equity, and fairness. It is adopted by men and women to regulate legal behavior in social settings, disputes, contests, and arguments. Common law action is a civil lawsuit between opposing parties over a real legal issue in which the relief (help) requested as remedy is generally money granted as an award for damages.

Common law developed after the French Norman Conquest in 1066 A.D. as the law common to the whole of England, rather than the local law used by the Saxons, the Angles, the Jutes, and the Celts. As the court system became established later under King Henry II, and judges decisions became recorded in law reports, the doctrine of precedents developed[1].

Historically, common law is a system of laws that prevails in England and in all countries colonized by Great Britain and the British Commonwealth. The concept of “common law” is derived from the medieval theory that the law is administered by the King’s Court which represented “the custom commonly used throughout the realm”, in contrast to the custom of local jurisdiction that was applied in local or manorial courts. According to Sir John Davies (1`569-1626), “it was nothing else but the Common Custome of the Realm” quoted in Preface to Reports, (1612). Later, Sir John Fortescue declared that the “realm has been continuously ruled by the same customs as it is now”, as noted “In Praise of the Laws of England”, c. 1470, in the original title, “De Laudibus Legum Angliae” in which the English Chancellor of the High Court of England discussed royal and political control, “sovereignty”, in response to the problem of tyranny, as presented by St. Thomas Aquina and Ptolemy of Lucca. Thomas Aquina exposed the idea of “De Regimine Principum” among the highest goals of medieval political thought—Sir John Fortescue sustained that while England was a “dominium politicum regale”, France, its secular opponent, represented a simple “dominium regale”. As the most important exponent of English political thought in the 15th century, Sir John Fortescue expressed simply that in contract to France, in England, the King was subject to the same right that the monarch approved with the two Chambers of Parliament, whose consensus was also necessary in order to establish taxes (11)—Sir John Fortescue, “De Laudibus Legum Angliae” as “In Praise for the Laws of England”, Chapters IX and XVIII[2].

English common law developed from legal usage within three (3) English courts as follow: the King’s Bench, Exchequer, and the Court of Common Pleas. The King’s Bench originally litigated the crown’s business (including criminal matters and had jurisdiction to correct errors from other courts of record). The Exchequer of Pleas, involved primarily revenue matters. Then, in a narrower sense, the common law was the body of law administered in Westminster Hall by the twelve (12) judges of the three superior courts of law. These were the Common Pleas, whose position as the prime court of civil suits had been secured by the Magna Carta (1215) and which continued to attract most civil litigation until the 18th century. The common law administered in these three (3) courts contrasted with “equity” as practiced primarily in the Court of Chancery. The Court of Chancery was originally designated as a “Court of Conscience”, concerned with securing justice in individual cases, rather than following strict rules[3].

In “Roots,” the role of the sheriff is presented as “the oldest continuing, non-military, law enforcement entity in the history of England”. In the 9th century, “shires” were municipal and administrative kingdoms divided by the King of England and assigned to trusted representatives. The shire representative appointed by the King protected his interest and the people of his particular land territory. In medieval English, the appointed trustees were called “reeves” as “guardians of the shire”. Historical usage of the words “shire-reeve” together, derived the contemporary term for the concept of “sheriff”, as we know their office of service today, before and after the French Norman invasion of England in 1066 A.D. In the past, the sheriff was responsible for keeping the peace, collecting taxes, maintaining jails, arresting fugitives, maintaining lists of wanted criminals, serving orders and writs for the King’s Court.

According to DeKalb County Sheriff Roger Scott, “the responsibilities of the office of the sheriff in England ebbed and flowed, depending on the mood and needs of kings and government”. The Magna Carta (1215) signed by King John restricted and circumscribed the responsibilities and duties of the sheriff in his times.

In the British Commonwealth, as well as in America, the concept of the sheriff has been adopted with the common law, through time, space, and physical presence. In the American colonies settled by the British since 1607 A.D., sheriffs were also appointed following the role model of English government. The first sheriff in the United States of America has been noted to be Captain William Stone, appointed in 1634 for the Shire of Northampton in the colony of Virginia. The first elected sheriff was William Waters in 1652 for the same shire. The word “shire” was used in many of the Commonwealth colonies, before the word “county” replaced its usage[4].

Under English common law, notaries public also provide another timeless office of service for the legal court system and the community at large. Since the Roman Republic, in the past, notaries public have drawn important documents and records writing for business and employment. During the times of the Roman Empire, notaries public were known under various titles in Latin, such as “scriba”, “cursor”, tabularius”, “tabelio”, “exceptor”, “actuaries”, and “notarius”, according to the historical times in which they lived and the duties performed. Notaries public are subject to regulation by law since the later days in Ancient Rome. Some of the notarial acts have been granted degrees of authenticity to be designated as public instruments and were required to be kept as records to be deposited in public archives for the government[5].

Notaries public are commissioned by the State of Illinois, Office of the Secretary of State Jesse White. Their term of office is four (4) years from the time of commission.

Throughout history, in the early past, notaries public were well known functionaries during the times of the great Charlemagne who vested notarial acts by scribes with public authority and provided notaries public appointments by his deputies in every locality in their territories. Charlemagne provided that each bishop, abbot, and count should have a notary public.

In England, appointed notaries public acted as “conveyancers”, before the French Norman Conquest in 1066 A.D., as shown by the fact that a grant of lands and manors was made by King Edward the Confessor, to the Abbot of Westminster by a charter written and attested by a notary public. In Great Britain, notaries public are authorized to administer oaths, and this official power is vested by statute.

The laws of the United States of America, under the Constitution and under God is similar, for notaries public and is often declared by the statutes of the various states and other jurisdictions.

It is my opinion that common law is established in the history of languages with the legal tradition of the past, interpreted in the present as precedents, to be preset in the future and beyond…the 21st century.

English common law is based on timeless, immemorial customs and legal practices founded on natural reason, persuasion, and logic. According to Edward Coke, “reason is the life of the law, nay, the common law itself is nothing else but reason”—from the First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England or A Commentary upon Littleton by Edward Coke. Edited by Francis Hargrave and Charles Butler, (London, 1794).

Common law, within the context of its core principles, is perceived to be “timeless”. It is derived from legal authority “throughout the kingdom” as stated by Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, (1765-1769).

After the Civil War, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a book called, “The Common Law” (1881), in order to recognize that law evolved and that it was a byproduct/ consequence of historical events, rather than simply the result of reason. According to Oliver Wendell Holmes, “a moment’s insight is a life’s experience”. Holmes’ book “The Common Law” focuses on experience rather than logic and has been compared as a legal analog to Charles Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” which discusses biological processes, rather than divine ones. Oliver Wendell Holmes helped to popularize the understanding that law evolves…through time, space, physical presence, and beyond the 21st century.

After the Second World War, there was a growing interest in the use of the common law as a tool for social reform. While some academics spoke of the legal process—the belief that there were methods of common law and statutory interpretation that were independent of politics existed—other academics and jurists on both ends of the political spectrum urged judges to use their common law power to remake the law on its foundations. Where once judges had wielded the law to limit corporate liability, some began to expand “tort” law to facilitate recovery of damages and losses for injured parties in hazardous conditions, as victims of crime, to dangerous drugs to professional malpractice.

Now in the 21st century, Modern America continues to practice “common law” as a byproduct of generations of judicial decisions and during the course of time and beyond. Common law is understood to be the result of judge-made innovations, interpretation, application, and perception of the circumstances involved in judicial case review. However, a more conservative conception of the common law has been re-emerging in the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts and fellow jurists, scholars, and colleagues during 2007. During the first term of office appointed by President George W. Bush, Chief Justice John G. Roberts moved the U.S. Supreme Court toward a new conservative direction within the context of President Bush’s “faith-based initiative”.[6]

Since 1607, and for the last 400 years, judges still grapple and deliberate with new legal actions and struggle to apply precedents. Modern day judges are still using, applying, and interpreting the English common law system to date as a legal foundation to establish law practices for justice, equity, and fairness under the Constitution of the United States, and under God, throughout the 21st century and beyond…in the spirit of the times. Zeitgeist!

Sources:From the Law Library of my father, Mr. Roberto Hung, J.D.You and the Law. A Practical Guide to Everyday Law and How It Affects You and Your Family. Advisory Editor Henry V. Poor, Associate Dean of Yale University Law School, 1967-1972. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., New York, 1971.Family Legal Guide. A Complete Encyclopedia of Law for the Layman. Reader’s Digest Association, New York, 1971.Periodical, ‘The Week’, May 18, 2007 on the “400th Anniversary of Jamestowne, Virginia”.

Periodical,” The Week”. July 6-13, 2007. News. Main Stories. “The Roberts Court Chars a new direction”.
Periodical, ‘Newsweek’. Ideas, ‘Ties of Blood and History: Sir Winston Churchill’, February 26, 2007.

McCrum, Robert et al. The Story of English. BBC Public Television Series.The Illinois Sheriff, Spring 2005. ‘Roots. A Historical Perspective of the Office of the Sheriff’. DeKalb County Sheriff Roger Scott.Fortescue, John (1394-1477). De Laudibus Legum Angliae. In Praise of the Laws of England.http://www.answers.com/topic/commonlawJohn Marshal School of Law in Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Canada’s Court System, Department of Justice Publication.American Heritage Dictionary.Village of Lombard, et al. vs. Hung et al., Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Chancery Division, 505 North County Farm Road, Wheaton, IL 60187, County of Du Page, State of Illinois, United States of America.Churchill, Winston. A History of the English-Speaking Peoples.Roberts, Andrew. A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1901.
QPB Dictionary of Ideas. Quality Paperback Book Club. (New York: Helicon Publishing Ltd., 1995 in the United Kingdom under the title The Hutchinson Dictionary of Ideas), page 108, Common Law.

Cambridge text in the History of Political Thought, CUP, 1997. Law: Sovereignty in the British Doctrine (From Bracton to Dicey). Notes by Joaquin Varela Suanzes in http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v6n3/suanzes63_%20notes.html

Fortescue, John. The Governance of England: Otherwise called the Difference between an Absolute and Limited Monarchy. Editor Charles Plummer. London: Oxford University Press, 1885. Reprinted 1999 by the Law Book Exchange, Ltd.
Anderson’s Manual for Notaries Public. Fifth Edition. Gilmer, Wesley, Jr., B.A., M.S.L.S., J.D. W.H. Anderson Company. Cincinnati, 1966.

Richard, Tom, PhD. Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, University of Wisconsin, USA.Hung, Gardenia C., M.A., B.A., Communications, Languages & Culture, Inc., 502 S. Westmore-Meyers Road, Lombard IL 60148-3028 USA. Email: http://us.f314.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=GardHn@netscape.net

[1] QPB Dictionary of Ideas. Quality Paperback Book Club. (New York: Helicon Publishing Ltd., 1995 in the United Kingdom under the title The Hutchinson Dictionary of Ideas), page 108, Common Law.
[2] Cambridge text in the History of Political Thought, CUP, 1997. Law: Sovereignty in the British Doctrine (From Bracton to Dicey). Notes by Joaquin Varela Suanzes in http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v6n3/suanzes63_%20notes.html
Fortescue, John. The Governance of England: Otherwise called the Difference between an Absolute and Limited Monarchy. Editor Charles Plummer. London: Oxford University Press, 1885. Reprinted 1999 by the Law Book Exchange, Ltd.
[3] http://www.answers.com/commonlaw
[4] The Illinois Sheriff. Spring 2005. A magazine published by the Illinois Sheriff Association. “Roots. A Historical Perspective of the Office of the Sheriff”. By DeKalb County Sheriff Roger Scott. Pages 6-7.
[5] Anderson’s Manual for Notaries Public. Fifth Edition. Gilmer, Wesley, Jr., B.A., M.S.L.S., J.D. W.H. Anderson Company. Cincinnati, 1966. Chapter 1, Page 2.
[6] The Week. July 6-13, 2007. News. Main Stories. “The Roberts Court Charts a new direction”.

104.3 K-Hits Chicago

Chicago's Greatest Hits

Hollywood Life

Latest Hollywood Gossip, News & Celeb Pics

InsureZero Blog

All you need to know about Insurance

Bernström Quilt Works

Deconstructing the Common Quilt

Bow Truss Coffee Roasters

We bring together coffee professionals to make specialty coffee more approachable.

Illinois Leaks

“Edgar County Watchdogs"

CBS Chicago

Chicago News, Sports, Weather, Traffic, and the Best of Chicago - CBS 2 TV | WBBM Newsradio 780 | 670 The Score

CBS Chicago

Chicago News, Sports, Weather, Traffic, and the Best of Chicago - CBS 2 TV | WBBM Newsradio 780 | 670 The Score

Siempre con Cuba

Yo defiendo a Cuba

CNNEspañol.com

Ultimas Noticias de Estados Unidos, Latinoamérica y el Mundo, Opinión y Videos

Craig Shaw - Freelance Journalism

Welcome to the blog of freelance journalist, photographer and writer Craig Stephen Shaw.

Miguelnoa's Weblog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Photos, Hodgepodge and Miscellany

randomness from me to you

Stephen Rynkiewicz

Financial & technology communications, digital strategy

%d bloggers like this: