Category: Common Law Conversion
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 MOTION
DEFENDANTS’ THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE/ANSWER TO SUMMONS.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO REPAIR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH A MOTION FOR A THIRD OBJECTION TO THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DEMOLITION AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO ACTION FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION, CONSUMER SERVICE FRAUD, CONVERSION OF REAL PROPERTY AS AN ACCESS TO CRIME.
MOTION TO COMPEL ORDER TO REPAIR
Hearing Date: March 19, 2008, 9:00 AM
Second Objection: January 24, 2008
Objection Filed: November 26, 2007
Attn. Judge Kenneth L. Popejoy, Chancery Division To: Honorable 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: Mr. Howard C. Jablecki, et al. Attn. Zees Group Services
Law Firm of Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, Ltd. ZSC Insurance Restoration Svces. LLC
Attorneys for the Plaintiff 6850 West Montrose Avenue
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1660 Hardwood Heights, Illinois 60706-7192
Chicago, Illinois 60606-2903 USA Tel. 708/867-7676, Fax: 708/867-6868
Tel. 312/984-6400, Fax: 312/984-6444 To Whom It May Concern
NOTICE OF FILING MOTION
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT on the 19th day of March, in the year 2008, I shall appear before Judge Kenneth L. Popejoy or any other judge as may be holding court in his/her absence, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 2005, located at the Du Page County Judicial Center, 505 North County Farm Road, Wheaton, Illinois and then and there present the following:
DEFENDANTS’ THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE/ANSWER TO SUMMONS.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A THIRD OBJECTION TO THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DEMOLITION AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PREAMBLE, ARTICLE I, BILL OF RIGHTS, AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNDER THE DOCTRINE FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION, CONSUMER SERVICE FRAUD, CONVERSION OF REAL PROPERTY, AND DISCRIMINATION.
Now comes Gardenia C. Hung as PRO SE to submit the Defendants’ Motion for a Third Objection to the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief, pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Illinois, Preamble, Article I, Section 1, about Inherent and Inalienable Rights, in the Bill of Rights which state the following:
We, the People of the State of Illinois—grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious
Liberty which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors—in order to
Provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the people, maintain a representative and orderly
government; eliminate poverty and inequality; assure legal, social, and economic justice; provide
opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; insure domestic tranquility; provide for the
common defense and secure the blessings of freedom and liberty to ourselves and our posterity
–do ordain and establish this Constitution of the State of Illinois.
Article 1, Section 1, Inherent and Inalienable Rights
All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among
which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.
Defendants hereby present an affirmative defense with this Third Motion for Objection to the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief, subsequent to the doctrine of inverse condemnation, consumer service fraud, conversion of real property as an access to crime set up by the Plaintiff, the Lombard Police Department, the Carpenters, and other accomplices in the Village of Lombard, and reasons for discrimination and abuse of the Defendants’ fundamental rights, civil rights, residential rights, homeowners’ rights, personal rights, and constitutional rights in the State of Illinois.
Plaintiff as the Village of Lombard, et al. has taken and/or damaged the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow, P.I.N. No. 06-09-314-038, owned by the Estate of Mr. Roberto Hung Supplemental Care Trust and the Hung Family, during the course of municipal services in Du Page County, without authorization from Gardenia C. Hung, et al., without the Plaintiff or Counsel requesting legal power of attorney, without providing just compensation to the Defendants, by law, only for the Plaintiff’s own intent and public purposes; unbeknownst to Gardenia C. Hung and Family—all of which have caused damages and losses to private real estate property owned by the Hung Family, at losses in excess of $50,000—disregarding the homeownership interest that Gardenia C. Hung has in this Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow, built during 1927 for the Lilac Festival and the anniversary of Lilacia Park, in Du Page County, Illinois, USA.
Please Take Notice of the Following:
· Defendants have ownership interest with three (3) warranty deed titles registered by the Du Page County Recorder of Deeds in Wheaton, Illinois for the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow purchased with cash retirement funds by the late Mr. Roberto Hung, J.D. and eldest daughter Gardenia C. Hung, M.A. (Ref. County of San Diego v. Miller (1975) 13 Cal. 3d, 684.)
· Plaintiff as the Village of Lombard, an Illinois Municipal Corporation, et al., All Employees, that is to say, the Lombard Police Department, Fire Department, Public Works, Water Department and Sewage Services have engaged in “public” activities and/or projects, trespassing, access to crime, unauthorized access entries, involving breach of service contracts, negligence per se, “bad faith”, consumer service fraud, heinous hate crimes, and discrimination which have damaged the subject real estate property during the course of services rendered, as an access to crime and under the doctrine of inverse condemnation. (Ref. Stoney Creek Orchards v. State (1970) 12 Cal. App. 3d 903.)
· The Village of Lombard, et al. have been taking and/or damaging the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow through trespassing, jumping Gothic fence posts, unauthorized municipal services, access entries leaving the porch door open while Gardenia C. Hung and the Defendants have been away from home, hospitalized, injured, traveling, working, without asking the Defendants for permission, consent or authorization, and without having any legal power of attorney from the Hung Family. (Ref. People ex rel Department of Transportation v. Romano (1971) 18 Cal. App. 3d 63)
· Plaintiff’s public activity or failure to act during 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and to date in 2008, as planned and customary by municipal standards and regular norms is the proximate or substantial, direct cause of the takings or damages incurred by the Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow owned by Gardenia C. Hung, et al. (Ref. Ingram v. City of Redondo Beach (1975) 45 Cal. App. 3d 628; Aaron v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 40 Cal. App. 3d 471, 478; Blau v. City of Los Angeles (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 77)
· There is a “continuing damages” theory practiced by the Village of Lombard, et al. from 1993, when Mr. Roberto Hung, J.D. purchased the Lombard Brick Bungalow, during 1996 when the same Lombard resident completed cash payment for this subject property and he was injured at home on December 22, 1996, and increasing “continuing damages and losses” after Mr. Robert Hung, J.D. was murdered during June 18, 1998, while his eldest daughter Gardenia C. Hung has been representing the Estate of Mr. Roberto Hung Supplemental Care Trust, as Executor Trustee, and she and the Defendants have been supporting the estate trust financially, physically, and residentially in the Village of Lombard, Du Page County, Illinois, USA.
· Defendants hereby object to the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief with false allegations at issue presented by Counsel Howard C. Jablecki et al., in order to support counterclaims to set off/offset the Verified Complaint under the doctrine for inverse condemnation, consumer service fraud, conversion of real property as an access to crime by the Village of Lombard, et al., as a direct cause of action and “substantial factor” issues for the Third Objection to the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief.
· Gardenia C. Hung, et al. invokes the doctrine of inverse condemnation, consumer service fraud, conversion of real property, and discrimination in order to claim attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and legal costs, expenses available for inverse cases and in enforcing a judgment in such a case. (Ref. Downen’s Inc. v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2001) 86 Cal. Appp. 4th 856)
· This Third Motion for Objection to the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief restates that in the State of Illinois, it is illegal to discriminate against people because of their race, color, religion or national origin. It is illegal to discriminate against people for housing ownership and property resident in the Village of Lombard, Du Page County, Illinois, USA. Please note that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 with respect to housing and property ownership is still in effect today in 2008, one hundred and forty-two (142) years later… The Civil Rights Act of 1866 provides that all citizens of the United States have the same rights as whites to inherit, buy, lease, sell, own, hold, and transfer title to any real property (real estate) or personal property. Under U.S. federal law, any person who wrongfully uses his/her office to deprive another of his civil rights will be liable for nominal and/or compensatory damages, plus punitive damages. Civil rights include consumer rights, homeowners’ rights, citizens’ rights, constitutional rights, and real estate property rights.
· Gardenia C. Hung, et al., as a woman, resident, homeowner, taxpayer, and citizen in the Village of Lombard, reinstates objections in this Motion pursuant to the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the Constitution which supports that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex gender.” It is unlawful in the State of Illinois to discriminate against women as resident homeowners, taxpayer, and U.S. citizens in the Village of Lombard, Du Page County, USA.
· This Motion for a Third Objection to the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief is based on constitutional grounds, under the legal concept of inverse condemnation, consumer service fraud, and conversion of real property as “action in trover”. (Case-in-point, Pacific Bell v. City of San Diego (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 596; Albers v. Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 250) which establish case precedents even when a public works improvement was designated and constructed according to normal engineering standards, and it fails (or works satisfactorily and causes damages in an unintended way), Plaintiff can still be liable for water rupture due to ungauged water pressure, as the Village of Lombard, an Illinois municipal corporation. Please take notice that in flood-related claims, courts have imposed an element of fault, and/or proof of unreasonableness. (Ref. Bunch v. Coachella Valley Water Dist. (1997) 15 Cal. 4th 432).
· The Lombard Historical Brick Bungalow is located in the Village of Lombard, District 5 area, designated by the name of “Lincoln”. District 5, as a community-based residential area, does not demolish historical real estate property. Lombard resident homeowners in District 5, on Washington Boulevard and Westmore-Meyers Road, are known to repair, restore, and preserve Lombard Historic Real Estate Property. One hundred and thirty-nine (139) years ago, the Village of Lombard was established in 1869, in the County of Du Page, State of Illinois, United States of America. As an Illinois historic village and municipal corporation, Lombard owes Gardenia C. Hung and Family, just compensation for all the damages and losses caused by the Plaintiff, from 1993 through 2008, during takings through trespassing and damages due to unauthorized consumer services, the Village’s own intents and public purposes, without having paid any compensation to Gardenia C. Hung, or to Mr. Roberto Hung, J.D., or to the Estate of Mr. Roberto Hung Supplemental Care Trust, and/or to the Hung Family assets, investments, and holdings. Case-in-point, in 1897, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are required to pay “just compensation” when taking or “damaging” private property for public use occurs. (Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. Chicago (1897)
· For the record, in 1922, Parcel 1: Lot eighty (80) in Robertson’s Westmore, as subdivision of part of the West half of the Third Meridian, lying South of the Right Way Line of the Chicago Aurora and Elgin Railroad Company, Document 15681, was recorded according to the Plat thereof on June 1st 1922 in Du Page County, Illinois, USA. This Lombard real estate property is now where John and Eva Carpenter have lived since 2001. That house is now eighty-six (86) years older than the subject property build in 1927, according to the Du Page County Recorder of Deeds Office and the York Township Assessor’s Office records and warranty deeds in trust.
· The Lombard Historic Brick Bungalow designated as P.I.N. 06-09-315-038 has been subject and target of “regulatory takings”, damages, and losses by the Village of Lombard, et al., All Employees, through trespassing and unauthorized access entries.
· Concurrently, since 1922, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes extended the definition of “takings” and/or damages by declaring that “when the diminution (i.e. depreciation) in value resulting from “the regulation of using (private) property without paying compensation to affected Illinois homeowners, “reaches a certain magnitude, in most if not in all cases, there must an exercise of eminent domain and just compensation to sustain a taking for inverse condemnation requiring payment of just compensation.”
· The Supreme Court repeatedly has stressed that takings claims “under the doctrine of inverse condemnation” must be decided in light of the basic purpose of the just compensation clause “to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which in all fairness and justice, should be borne by a public as a whole.” (Ref. Armstrong v. United States, 1960, p. 49).
· The Village of Lombard, et al., All Employees, have caused damages and losses to the Lombard Historic Brick Bungalow during the course of municipal services in Illinois, and as such, Plaintiff is liable for consumer service fraud pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act, FTC, 15 USC § 45 et seq. and 16 CFR, and subsequent Illinois statutes for consumer service protection against consumer service fraud, deceptive business practices, and prohibited business practices. The Consumer Service Fraud Act, 815 ILC 505/1 et seq. (West 2004), enacted in 1961 includes a variety of consumer service abuses, such as fraud, deception, false promise, misrepresentation, and the intentional omission of material fact (of evidence) with respect to real estate property and Illinois homeowners, as consumers.
· Defendants, as the aggrieved party, hereby reinstate this Motion for a Third Objection to the Verified Complaint for Demolition and for Injunctive Relief on legal constitutional grounds since Counsel Howard C. Jablecki is liable for Estoppel in denying the truth about facts of evidence for the repair, restoration, and preservation plans by Zees Group Services, underwritten by ZSC Insurance Restoration Services, LLC., and proposed by Gardenia C. Hung during November 2006 to the Village of Lombard and the Du Page County Board of Commissioners in Wheaton, Illinois, USA.
· Gardenia C. Hung, et al., support this Motion for a Third Objection to the Verified Complaint for Demolition and Injunctive Relief subsequent to consumer service reports to the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Illinois Commerce Commission, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Renewal, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Department of Commerce, Internal Revenue Service, and the Office of the President of the United States of America, in Washington, D.C., United States of America.
WHEREFORE, DEFENDANTS, GARDENIA C. HUNG ET AL. PRAY TO SUSTAIN THIS MOTION FOR A THIRD OBJECTION TO THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DEMOLITION AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL COURT ORDER TO REPAIR THE LOMBARD HISTORICAL BRICK BUNGALOW, PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PREAMBLE, ARTICLE I, BILL OF RIGHTS, AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNDER THE DOCTRINE FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION, CONSUMER SERVICE FRAUD, CONVERSION OF REAL PROPERTY, AND DISCRIMINATION, THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION; SUBSEQUENT TO ARTICLE I, SECTION 15, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS; THE ILLINOIS HOME REPAIR AND REMODELING ACT, ILLINOIS VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT, ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS ACT WITH PROTECTIONS IN HOUSING UNDER THE LAW, HATE CRIMES LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENHANCEMENT ACT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN RENEWAL ACT, AND FEDERAL TRADE COMMISION ACT , 15 USC § 45 ET SEQ. AND 16 CFR, SUBSEQUENT TO THE ILLINOIS STATUTES FOR CONSUMER SERVICE PROTECTION AGAINST CONSUMER SERVICE FRAUD, DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES, AND PROHIBITED BUSINESS PRACTICES.
IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS PRAY FOR EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY AND RELIEF, IN THE FORM OF JUST COMPENSATION WITH JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, AND EQUITY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INVERSE CONDEMNATION, WHICH PROVIDES CASH REMEDY AND MONETARY RELIEF FOR RESTITUTION AND INDEMNITY TO THE AGGRIEVED, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, UNDER GOD.
Respectfully Submitted and Dated on the 27th day of the month of February in the year 2008.
_________________________________________
(Reserved Signature)
Gardenia C. Hung, M.A. for the Defendants
On behalf of the Estate of Mr. Roberto Hung Supplemental Care Trust
502 S. Westmore-Meyers Road
Lombard, IL 60148-3028 USA
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.
Date: February 27, 2008 Signed by:____________________________________
Gardenia C. Hung, M.A.
Executed in the County of Du Page, in the State of Illinois, United States of America
Share this:
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”.
GHung's Blog 