Right to Travel denied, HALAJIAN v. D & B TOWING

Can governments lawfully restrict, register, or otherwise encumber our free right to travel? Should they? Discussions on Right to Travel.
Post Reply
scar
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:49 am

Right to Travel denied, HALAJIAN v. D & B TOWING

Post by scar » Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:56 am

I came across this case the other day, HALAJIAN v. D & B TOWING 209 Cal.App.4th 1 (2012), 146 Cal. Rptr. 3d 646. (I attached a print-out from the law library) Some unfortunate opinions by this California appeals court, just read the first couple pages. what bothers me the most is that they found that having to register your property does not restrict the right to travel. i'm not sure how it works in California, but in Arizona we are supposed to re-register it every year and pay a fee, which is unreasonably burdensome in my opinion. i don't think the decision was appealed unfortunately.
Attachments
209 Cal. App. 4th 1; 146 Cal. Rptr. 3d 646; 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 949.pdf
BARRY S. HALAJIAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. D & B TOWING et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
F063071
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
209 Cal. App. 4th 1; 146 Cal. Rptr. 3d 646; 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 949
September 4, 2012, Opinion Filed
(154.92 KiB) Downloaded 427 times
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Right to Travel denied, HALAJIAN v. D & B TOWING

Post by notmartha » Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:38 pm

From the case:
Torts > Intentional Torts > Conversion > Elements
[HN2] The wrongful exercise of dominion over the personal property of another, whether it involves wrongful taking or
lawful taking and wrongful withholding, constitutes the tort of conversion.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the order dismissing plaintiff's action. The court concluded that plaintiff's constitutional right to travel provided no basis for concluding the towing company's withholding of the truck was "wrongful" for purposes of the tort of conversion.
(7) Constitutional Law § 52--Fundamental Rights--Right to Travel--Conversion.--In a case in which plaintiff sued a
towing company for wrongfully withholding his light truck for 38 days and requiring him to pay $1,385 before releasing
the truck, plaintiff's constitutional right to travel provided no basis for concluding the towing company's withholding of
the truck was "wrongful" for purposes of the tort of conversion.
[HN1] The judgment of dismissal will be reversed and the order sustaining the demurrer vacated if plaintiff's complaint, as amended, alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for the conversion of his truck. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) The sufficiency of plaintiff's allegations turns on whether the facts he alleged show Towing Company's possession of the truck was wrongful. (5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 692, p. 110 [ [HN2] the "wrongful exercise of dominion over the personal property of another, whether it involves wrongful taking or lawful taking and wrongful withholding, constitutes the tort of conversion"].)
As a result, plaintiff cannot establish that Towing Company is liable [***35] for conversion based on a wrongful exercise of dominion over the truck.

WEX Legal Dictionary defines Conversion as:
A tort. An intention act by a defendant causing the serious and substantial interference with or the destruction of the chattel of the defendant.
Black's 1st:
conversion blacks 1.JPG
conversion blacks 1.JPG (118.13 KiB) Viewed 8179 times
Especially note the definition regarding equity. Lots of conversion going on, other than the truck, that appears to not have been focused on. Misapplication seems to be plaintiffs shortcoming.
scar
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:49 am

Re: Right to Travel denied, HALAJIAN v. D & B TOWING

Post by scar » Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:28 pm

yes i noted misapplication as well, case probably should have been filed against the state itself. but the court still opined on the merits of "right to travel" and found that licenses and registration were not unreasonably burdensome...
scar
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:49 am

Re: Right to Travel denied, HALAJIAN v. D & B TOWING

Post by scar » Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:21 am

Although after thinking about this some more, notmartha, the misapplication you were talking about is making more sense.

The california appeals court would not be the right venue to make such an argument. The court is biased and of course in favor of it's own state's laws and it didn't find any illegality in how they were applied to Mr. Halajian. I'm not sure how this case came to be, seems to be an "APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County, No. 11CECG00005, Debra Kazanjian, Judge." So Mr. Halajian was probably appealing up the ladder of courts... It's unfortunate he made the mistake of suing the towing company who was just ordered to tow his property by the Sheriff, who was acting on behalf of the State. This sort of case would need to be heard/filed at the federal level for there to be any sense of fairness, and the "State of California" would have to be the defendant....
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Right to Travel denied, HALAJIAN v. D & B TOWING

Post by notmartha » Tue Dec 29, 2015 1:24 pm

It is impossible for me to say for sure without actually seeing the transcript. "Judges" often circumvent what the plaintiff actually says, deeming other "facts" so.

The misapplications I was speaking of were the application of the AOC to CALIFORNIA, and the statutes to people.

For instance, if Barry Halajian was going to stand as one of the People, and a "free inhabitant," he never should have animated the fiction BARRY S. HALAJIAN to begin with.

Here is a better explanation of case that shows how he also misapplied actions and procedures.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of- ... 11270.html

And here is the appealed case:
***correction...this appears to be a previous case unrelated to the one we are discussing

http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDo ... ECA.htm/qx

If you do a search of this man's name you will find years of paper battles...IRS, Mortgage Companies, travel issues, UCC issues, etc. He was no stranger to the district courts of CA. He is often taking the benefit of statutes, and animating fictions. You can learn a lot from others mistakes, if you can discern the cases, and what is actually said.
Post Reply