They also understand how hazardous and risky it can be to travel into other counties within the State of
South Carolina, due to the extreme level of unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions that Lon has
experienced in some courts in this state.
Lon
and Janie understand that as one travels in South Carolina, from one
location to another within one county, and when one travels into other
SC counties, the magistrate court system jurisdiction is frequently
changing from one location to another.
Lon and Janie realize
that there are more than 300 magistrate court jurisdictions in this
state, and Lon's limited experiences with magistrate court litigation
actions left him disgusted with their level of administrative
incompetence, and their lack of judicial competency, and their extreme
deficiency of responsible judicial actions in a jury trial litigation
process.
Magistrate
court judges in South Carolina are not required to be law school
graduates. A lot of their" legal education and training" can be learned
on the job in a practical, sensible way. The author herein does do not
have a serious problem with that situation, realizing that it
potentially reduces the cost of administering 300+ Magistrate's Courts
within the state.
However, the magistrate court judge (summary court judge) that presided during the one-day jury trial case (for ABC's of Health, Inc. as the plaintiff) was a law school graduate.
She had been a member of the South Carolina Bar Association for about
nine years, and she was extremely incompetent as a jury trial judge.
Her judicial incompetence and very bad judicial judgment (decisions)
during the trial totally wrecked the plaintiff's efforts to present
their case to the six-person jury.
The judge allowed, and effectively assisted, the defendant LLC business
to present a lot of very serious perjured testimony about issues that
had not been noticed in their pleadings for litigation during the
trial. The judge made no proper objections to those extremely unfair and
unethical defendant's trial court actions.
The
one-day jury trial was a fraud and a sham proceeding, thanks to the
judge's abundant incompetence and a lot of perjured testimony by the
defendant's witnesses during trial, and some incompetent lazy actions by
the six-person jury (as clearly encouraged and motivated by the
incompetent trial court judge).
Even though the plaintiff (ABC's of Health, Inc.)
managed to win partially in the jury trial, the plaintiff still had to
go through many hours of multiple post-trial motion actions trying to
get the judge to agree to schedule another trial to replace the first
badly botched up trial.
The
unfair, unethical, and corrupt despotic judge would not acknowledge any of
her deficient trial court actions. She repeatedly refused to grant any
of the plaintiff's successive progressive motions that requested a new
trial.
The plaintiff was left with no viable option except to pay the filing fee and file a timely Notice of Appeal
for the one-day judicial fiasco of a trial. He then took appropriate
actions to have all of the trial court records for the case below to be
transferred to the circuit court as the Record on Appeal for said appeal.
NOTE: An
appeal from a Magistrate's Court litigation process is taken to the
next court up, in this situation, the Circuit Court in Greenville County
(the Court of Common Pleas).
Appeal
briefs in the South Carolina Circuit Court (or in the SC Appellate
Court) must be drafted and word-processed in a specific detailed way,
and that procedure requires a lot of time and effort by the appellant to construct the
required Memorandum of Law for the appeal. This is particularly true
for a jury trial proceeding that is appealed because it is theoretically
much more difficult to reverse a jury trial decision (get a new trial)
than to reverse a similar verdict in a Magistrate Court's bench trial
(where there was no jury involved in the trial).
The appellant's complex appeal brief (Memorandum of Law) was subsequently amended and became an Amended Memorandum of Law that Lonnie Willoughby also filed pro se (without attorney assistance), as the president of ABC's of Health, Inc. (the plaintiff in the Magistrate's Court - the trial court below).
That Amended Memorandum of Law
reported in substantial detail eleven (11) specific reasons why the
appellate judge (single circuit court judge) would be justified in
ordering that the plaintiff below (ABC's of Health, Inc.) would get a new trial (to replace the very bad sham of a trial proceeding that occurred in the Magistrate's Court below).
The multiple relevant law case citations and law case quotations that Lonnie Willoughby presented in the Appellant's Amended Memorandum of Law showed
an exceptionally strong factual and legal case law basis for the
appellate court judge to order a new trial - as the final result of the
appeal process.
It is very important
to understand that the opposing party in the appeal case also did not
have attorney representation in the appeal, and they did not file a pro
se opposing responsive appeal brief.
Therefore, the business LLC (Respondent) did not object to, or oppose,
any statements of fact or statements of law that had been presented in the Appellant's
detailed Amended Memorandum of Law that had been timely served upon them.
In practical essence, Appellant ABC's of Health, Inc. had no opposition of any kind in the appeal process in the local Circuit Court. (the Court of Common Pleas)
The
single circuit court judge, acting as an appellate court judge, denied
the Appellant's exceptionally strong, 11 reasons basis, for a new trial
and autocratically dismissed the appeal.
The
extremely unfair, unethical, and dishonest judge failed to find any
justification for a new trial, in spite of all of the solid documentary
evidence, and exceptionally strong legal arguments, showing eleven
specific reasons for the appeal judge to order that a new trial be
granted, as clearly requested in the Appellant's detailed appeal brief (Amended Memorandum of Law).
The appeal judge apparently failed to responsibly read the Appellant's Amended Memorandum of Law because he totally ignored the exceptionally strong evidential basis and the very strong legal citations and relevant quotations from very important previous case law decisions in South Carolina courts that showed various approved reasons for granting a new trial.
That ABC's of Health, Inc.
circuit court appeal case is a very clear illustration of how
disgustingly unfair, unethical, and corrupt an appeal litigation process
can be in the State of South Carolina.
With
an abundance of documented evidence about the extremely unfair and
incompetent manner in which the Summary Court Judge had conducted the
one-day jury trial litigation process in the Magistrate Court below, the
appellate court judge did not have the basic honesty and integrity to
simply admit (or acknowledge) that the female judge had not conducted
the one-day jury trial in a competent and responsible judicial manner.
The detailed documentary record of that trial showed that the the Summary Court Judge had conducted the one-day jury trial in an extremely unfair, unethical, and incompetent manner.
However,
the unfair, unethical, and disgustingly dishonest appellate court judge
would not admit that the jury trial was a sham and fraud proceeding
that clearly justified a new trial.
Lonnie Willoughby, as president of ABC's of Health, Inc.,
was so disappointed and so disgusted with the extremely unfair and
unethical dishonest appeal decision of the appellate court judge that he
proceeded to timely file a Notice of Appeal of that judicial decision
in the Appellate Court of South Carolina ($250.00 filing fee).
Lonnie
Willoughby already knew, from his previous appellate court actions,
that the Supreme Court of South Carolina had decided many years earlier
that any appeals filed in the Appellate Court had to be filed by a
licensed attorney in South Carolina.
Lonnie
Willoughby had carefully researched that high court decision previously
and had found that the court's decision about that specific issue was
in clear conflict with the Constitution of South Carolina. Art. 1, Section 14. The
Constitution clearly protects the right of every person to be fully
heard in his defense by himself or by his counsel or by both.
The S.C. Appellate Court responded to Willoughby's pro se Notice of Appeal
filing (filed without attorney assistance) with a letter that informed
Lonnie Willoughby that he would have 30 days in which to inform the
appellate court that a licensed attorney had been retained to represent
Appellant ABC's of Health, Inc. in the appeal process.
Still acting in his pro se capacity, Lonnie Willoughby timely developed and filed a detailed appeal
case legal brief that specifically challenged the legality of the high
court's decision about that specific legal issue. The appeal brief
showed that the high court's two case law decisions that had previously
established that precedent setting legal standard (appeal actions must
be represented by a licensed SC attorney) were in direct conflict with
Art. I, Section 14 of the South Carolina Constitution.
Art I, Section 14. The
Constitution clearly protects the right of every person to be fully
heard in his defense by himself or by his counsel or by both.
Therefore,
those two previous case law decisions by the high court, claiming that
every person must be represented by an attorney, were clearly "null and void" and had no legitimate legality at all regarding the current ABC's of Health, Inc.
appeal case. That appeal brief also properly moved the Appellate Court
to certify this conflict issue for review by the Supreme Court.
NOTE: Lonnie
Willoughby understands that any South Carolina court's legal type
decision that is clearly in conflict with any part of the Constitution
of South Carolina cannot stand, even case law decisions made by the
Supreme Court of S.C. If any court's decision is in conflict with a
portion of the state's Constitution, that decision is "null and void" - it clearly has no legal validity.
The appeal case legal brief also explained that the current situation,
requiring that all appeals must have a licensed SC attorney (lawyer)
represent all litigants on appeal, automatically established an appeal
process that would not report seriously unfair, unethical, and/or
corrupt judicial actions in an appeal.
All
attorneys (lawyers) in South Carolina are dependent upon the Supreme
Court (subservient to the high court) in maintaining their court approved
license to practice law in South Carolina. Therefore, the attorneys
(lawyers) in this state are not going to jeopardize their personal good
standing with the high court by honestly and ethically reporting
aggressively any outrageously unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial
actions of trial court judges.
Trial
court judges in South Carolina know that of course, and they understand
that they can freely be unfair, unethical, and despotically corrupt with litigants
and get away with it every time.
Two Appeal Cases From A Distant State
In the appeal brief that Lonnie Willoughby filed pro se for Appellant ABC's of Health, Inc.,
he also reported two appeal cases that he had previously won in a
distant southern state - that were actually relevant to the argument
issues reported in his pro se legal brief for the instant South Carolina
appeal case.
One
of those appeal cases was a published appellate court case law
decision, and Willoughby presented a photocopy of that published
decision in the appeal brief that he had filed pro se for Appellant ABC's of Health, Inc.
Motion For Summary Judgment
One
of those appeal cases was about a Motion for Summary Judgment decision
by a circuit court judge that was clearly unfair, unethical, and
outrageously corrupt. The Summary Judgment decision (in the distant
state) falsely claimed that Lonnie Willoughby's Counterclaim action
against his former defense attorney was time-barred by the Statute of
Limitations.
Lonnie
Willoughby had scheduled a court reporter to attend and transcribe all
actions for that Summary Judgment hearing in the circuit court judge's
judicial chambers. Lonnie Willoughby had traveled to the distant state
(by auto), and he participated in that judicial hearing in his pro se
capacity (acting without attorney assistance).
During
the Motion for Summary Judgment hearing, Lonnie Willoughby proceeded
pro se as the Counterclaim Plaintiff. He presented photocopies to the
circuit court judge of three relevant appellate court case law decisions
that each proved conclusively that the Statute of Limitations had not
expired in the special circumstances involved with Lonnie Willoughby's
counterclaim action against his former defense attorney for deceit,
fraud, and legal malpractice in an equity court case in that same
county.
At
the end of the motion hearing the judge did not make a decision about
the attorney's Motion for Summary Judgment, but it was obvious that the
judicial decision should deny the motion.
Lonnie Willoughby traveled the several hundred miles back to his home
in Mauldin, SC, knowing full-well that the judge would deny the
attorney's motion for Summary Judgment (which would have dismissed
entirely Willoughby's Counterclaim for deceit, fraud, and legal
malpractice as being time-barred when filed).
However,
when Lonnie Willoughby subsequently received the judge's order via U.S.
Mail, regarding the Summary Court hearing, the judge had improperly
ruled in favor of the attorney's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The
judge's order had dismissed entirely Willoughby's Counterclaim against
his former defense attorney for his deceitful and fraudulent attorney
actions that had caused co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby to lose in a civil
equity court trial (no jury) that the attorney should have won easily
for co-trustee Willoughby. Therefore, Willoughby's very serious legal
malpractice complaint was a responsible valid complaint.
The photocopies of three relevant appellate court case law decisions
that Willoughby had presented to the judge during the motion hearing
were controlling appellate court case law decisions. The judge had no
responsible viable judicial option except to comply with each of those
controlling decisions.
Each of those
decisions proved conclusively that the filing date for Lonnie
Willoughby's Counterclaim action against his former defense attorney was
not time-barred by the Statute of Limitations. However, the circuit
court judge, who was a former state prosecuting attorney, and the former
defense attorney had collusively lied about the Summary Court's
judicial decision when they both totally ignored the three relevant
controlling appellate court case law decisions that Willoughby gave to
the judge.
NOTE: In
the distant state, the winning attorney in a motion hearing, or in a
trial court's Final Judgment, has the standard duty to draft the final
decision order for the judge's signature. That is how Lonnie Willoughby
knew that the attorney and the judge had collusively lied about the
Summary Judgment decision. They wee both involved in finalizing the
wording in that judicial order.
On
appeal, Appellant Lonnie Willoughby presented an official transcript
record of the Motion for Summary Judgment hearing (transcript that he
had purchased from the court reporter that he had very fortunately
scheduled for the motion hearing).
The
official transcript record proved conclusively that Lonnie Willoughby
had presented the judge with a photocopy of three specifically cited
relevant appellate court case law decisions that had clearly proven
conclusively that the Statute of Limitations had not expired at the time
that Willoughby's Counterclaim action was filed against his former
defense attorney.
There
were some special timing considerations involved because Willoughby had
an appeal case in progress that affected the Statute of Limitations
timing for that particular situation.
Consequently,
the appellate court ruled in Appellant Lonnie Willoughby's favor and
reinstated his Counterclaim action (that had been dismissed by the
circuit court judge in an outrageously unfair, unethical, and clearly
dishonest and fraudulent manner).
The
appellate court's three judge panel did not responsibly initiate an
investigation of the criminal law violations that were clearly involved
with the attorney's deceitful unethical actions and the judge's
deceitful and unethical actions in preparing and filing a clearly
fraudulent summary judgment order.
The
three appellate judges had all of the documentary evidence that they
needed in the Record on Appeal to justify initiating an investigation of
the criminal law violations involved with the preparation and filing of
that fraudulent order, but they obviously ignored those very serious
criminal law violations (preparing and filing a known unfair, unethical,
and fraudulent Summary Judgment Order) because the three judges took no
responsible judicial actions in that regard.
This
was another illustration of how corrupt the judicial system can be
anytime they want to cover up unfair, unethical, and criminal acts by
members of the"legal brotherhood."
Criminal Contempt of Court - Appeal
The second relevant appeal case from the distant southern state was
about a Criminal Contempt of Court conviction that had been improperly
and corruptly prosecuted against non-resident Lonnie Willoughby by an
extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt County Court Judge and the
local state prosecuting attorney who had prosecuted the fraudulent
contempt complaint against non-resident Lonnie Willoughby (who lived in
Mauldin, SC).
The
Criminal Contempt of Court case alleged that Lonnie Willoughby had
violated a Circuit Court Injunctive Order when he wrote a brief one-page
letter to a judge in that county, explaining that he had been unable to
find a local attorney willing to represent him in further civil actions
in the local county court.
The
Circuit Court Injunctive Order had unfairly forbidden defendant Lonnie
Willoughby to file any more pleadings in the active Circuit Court case
in that county. The Circuit Court Judge did not want to have to contend
with any more of Willoughby's responsible pleading reports about
unfair, unethical, and corrupt attorney and judicial actions in the
Circuit Court Case. The judge then transferred the civil case down to
the County Court for further related litigation actions.
Lonnie Willoughby
appealed the County Court Order that convicted him of Criminal Contempt
of Court and sentenced him to jail in the local county jail for several
months.
Willoughby's
appeal brief argued that the alleged contempt of court action was not a
violation of the Circuit Court's Injunctive Order. Filing a simple
brief letter to a relevant judge, reporting that he had not been able to
locate a local attorney willing to represent him in further civil
litigation in the county court, was not a "pleading" in any ongoing
litigation case.
A
brief letter is clearly not a "pleading" in a litigation case, so there
was no violation of the Circuit Court's Injunctive Order that had
improperly denied Lonnie Willoughby the right to file any more pro se
pleadings in the Circuit Court case.
Willoughby's
appeal brief also argued that the County Court Judge did not have
subject-matter jurisdiction to attempt to enforce a Circuit Court's
Injunctive Order. The Circuit Court has authority to enforce its own
Injunctive Order, and it was clearly an improper judicial action for a
County Court Judge and the local state prosecuting attorney to attempt
to prosecute Lonnie Willoughby for an alleged violation of said Circuit
Court's Injunctive Order.
The
case had clearly been transferred from the Circuit Court to the County
Court. There was no litigation going on in the local Circuit Court
about that case. Willoughby did have an appeal in progress for that
Circuit Court case but that appeal decision had not been rendered at
that time. (The appeal reported above about the fraudulent Summary
Judgment Order.)
Lonnie Willoughby
won his appeal case about the Criminal Contempt of Court Conviction -
the appeal case where he was opposing, in his pro se capacity, the
state's local prosecuting attorney. The single circuit court judge, sitting as the appellate court judge, ruled in Willoughby's favor in that appeal.
The
judge dismissed the Criminal Contempt of Court conviction against
Lonnie Willoughby - primarily because the County Court Judge did not
have subject-matter jurisdiction of the alleged violation of the Circuit
Court Order. If there was a violation of the Circuit Court Order, that
violation would have to be prosecuted in the Circuit Court, not in the
County Court.
That
appeal decision was not a published case law decision because appeal
decisions in a circuit court appeal are not published cases.
Consequently, Lonnie Willoughby, proceeding pro se as the legal
representative of Appellant ABC's of Health, Inc.,
could not research that appellate court decision on the Internet, as he
had done for the first appellate court decision that is reported above
(the Summary Judgment appeal decision).
That
circuit court appeal decision is filed away in a storage warehouse and
Lonnie Willoughby did not have hours of time to search for that old
court record document that was about 15 years old. He therefore had to
simply report to the South Carolina Appellate Court the fact that he had
won that appeal in the distant southern state, while proceeding in his
pro se capacity.
Critically Important Relevance
The critically important relevance of those two appeal cases to the
instant appeal action in the South Carolina Court of Appeals is this:
Willoughby could not have won either of those appeal cases if those same
legal issues had been litigated in South Carolina.
The
Supreme Court of South Carolina has improperly denied all appellants in
this state the right to present their own appeals in their pro se
capacity. Consequently, in each of those litigation situations, Lonnie
Willoughby would have clearly lost in both of those litigation appeal
cases if he had been unable to spend several thousand dollars on
attorney fees for each of those appeal cases.
The
South Carolina judicial system would have dismissed both of his appeal
cases unless he had been represented by an attorney in each appeal case.
Even
if Lonnie Willoughby had been able and willing to spend several
thousand dollars on each of those appeal cases, there is no assurance
that an appeal attorney would have won either of those appeal cases
while representing Lonnie Willoughby.
Would
a retained attorney have represented Appellant Lonnie Willoughby in an
honest, competent, and responsible aggressive manner against extremely
unfair, unethical, and corrupt judges and in the second appeal, also an
unfair, unethical, and corrupt state prosecutor? (a solicitor in SC)
Based
upon Willoughby's previous experiences with a very prominent and
experienced attorney (20+ years of trial court experiences) in a trial
court equity court litigation, and also in the appeal case that followed
that extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt circuit court litigation,
Lonnie Willoughby would have lost in both of those appeals.
Lonnie Willoughby was ruthlessly betrayed by his attorneys in each of those cases (the trial court case and the appeal case).
In the Motion for Summary Judgment case reported above, he would have
lost entirely his Counterclaim action against his former defense
attorney for deceit, fraud, and legal malpractice.
In
the Criminal Contempt of Court case, he would have had to spend months
in a county jail when he had actually done nothing wrong. Willoughby's
pro se reporting of those two appeal cases demonstrated that it is an
extremely undesirable situation for a state's judicial system to
routinely deny litigants an opportunity to represent their own cases in
their pro se capacity (either as a plaintiff or as a defendant in the
trial courts) (or as an appellant or as a respondent in an appeal case).
With all of that very important reporting
of relevant issues, the South Carolina Appellate Court judges
apparently totally ignored all of Lonnie Willoughby's responsible pro se
reporting on appeal in the instant appeal case reported herein.
The
30-day time period expired and the Appellate Court mailed Lonnie
Willoughby another letter that stated that his pro se appeal action had
been dismissed because Appellant ABC's of Health, Inc. did not have attorney representation for the appeal.
That was the end of the appeal process for the instant appeal.
That was the second time that Lonnie Willoughby had directly challenged, in his pro se capacity,
the validity of the high court's previous case law decisions (two
cases) that claimed that a litigant in a circuit court civil case must
be represented by an attorney, and inferring that an appellant in a
circuit court appeal (appeal from a Magistrate's Court Final Judgment)
must have an attorney represent them on appeal, and proclaiming that an
appeal to the Appellate Court of SC, or the Supreme Court of SC, must
also be represented by a licensed attorney in SC.
In
both appeal cases filed by Willoughby, the judges in the Appellate
Court (and in the S.C. Supreme Court) totally ignored their clear duty
to acknowledge and comply with the directive in Art. I, Section 14 of
the Constitution of South Carolina. The
S.C, Constitution clearly protects the right of every person to be fully
heard in his defense by himself or by his counsel or by both.
That
Article of the Constitution makes it very clear to persons of ordinary
intelligence that the Constitution clearly intended to prevent the
current judicial status - where litigants are denied their protected
right to present their own pro se legal arguments and cases by
them-self, or present their legal arguments with attorney assistance, or
have both situations (their pro se representation and the attorney's
helpful representation).
Willoughby
has now gone through the appeal process in South Carolina twice,
challenging the high court's erroneous and improper case law decisions
about that very important issue.
He
found that local circuit court judges were disgustingly unfair,
unethical, and corrupt in an extremely "autocratic, elitist, despotic
self-serving manner" toward him as a pro se litigant. They seem to enjoy
deviant judicial behavior that corrupts a judicial process in an
extremely unfair and unethical manner.
If
a litigant is not financially able or not willing to spend several
thousand dollars to retain an attorney to represent them in the circuit
court litigation, or in an appeal process in the circuit court, the
circuit court judge will probably act in an autocratic elitist despotic
manner and dismiss the civil case, or dismiss an appeal case, no matter
how strong the documentary evidence is in support of the pro se
litigant's Complaint legal brief, or in the pro se litigant's Memorandum
of Law for an appeal case.
In
either case, in a trial court case or in an appeal case, it doesn't
matter how strong the cited legal case law decisions are that support
the litigant's trial court case or support the appellant's argument
issues on appeal, the circuit court judge will very likely ignore the
S.C. Constitution's mandate about the litigant's right to represent his
own case pro se, with or without attorney assistance. See quotation
information below.
Art. I, Section 14 shows that the
S.C. Constitution clearly protects the right of every person to be fully
heard in his defense by himself or by his counsel or by both.
It
is very clear to Lonnie Willoughby that the Supreme Court of South
Carolina has no subject-matter jurisdiction to change that portion of
the State's Constitution. It is also clear to Willoughby that the high
state court has no legitimate authority to ignore that critically important portion of the state's Constitution.
As shown herein, in an appeal proceeding, the
appellate judge can be so unfair, unethical, and dishonest that the
judge will not honestly and ethically acknowledge any serious judicial
error in the trial court below. (the Magistrate's Court)
In the instant appeal case for ABC's of Health, Inc.,
the circuit court judge acted in a grossly dishonest self-serving
manner (for benefit to the legal profession) by falsely denying that the
trial court judge's abundantly incompetent judicial actions during
trial had caused sufficient damage to the trial to justify a new trial.
The
"appeal court judge" was so unfair, unethical, and corrupt in a grossly
self-serving manner that he apparently did not even care that his
self-serving judicial actions were extremely unfair, unethical, and
corrupt toward litigant Lonnie Willoughby, Jr., as president of ABC's of Health, Inc. Needless to say, appellant ABC's of Health, Inc.
lost in the appeal case (in the circuit court appeal) even though the
defendant LLC (Respondent) did not file an opposing appeal brief.
Consequently, all of the "record evidence" before the appeal court
judge strongly supported the appellant's request for a new trial.
Furthermore, all of the legal citations and quotations of relevant legal
standards also strongly supported the appellant's request for a new
trial.
With
all of that relevant information strongly supporting the appellant's
eleven (11) argument issues for a new trial, the appellate court judge
(circuit court judge) unfairly and unethically denied the appellant's
appeal arguments, and thereby refused to order that a new trial be
granted.
At that point in the appeal litigation process, Appellant ABC's of Health, Inc.
had no viable alternative action except to appeal that obviously
unfair, unethical, and corrupt "appeal decision" to the Appellate Court
of South Carolina, as briefly related above.
Appellant Lonnie
Willoughby, Jr. (Lon) had taken an earlier appeal case to the Supreme
Court of South Carolina (in year 2003) because he was disgusted with the
unfair, unethical, and corrupt elitist autocratic despotic judicial
actions of the circuit court judge in that civil case.
Willoughby's final
appeal brief to the high court (filed pro se without attorney
assistance) requested that the circuit court order be reversed. The
Final Brief of Appellant also requested that the trial court judge be
removed as a circuit court judge.
During that appeal case, Lonnie Willoughby discovered
that the justices of the high court were also unfair, unethical, and
disgustingly dishonest (corrupt) in an elitist, autocratic, despotic,
self-serving manner. They knowingly and willfully violated their oath
of office regarding their duty to comply with the judicial standard that is stated clearly in the Constitution of South Carolina at Art. I, Section 14. (quoted above)
If the five justices had honestly and responsibly acknowledged that relevant cited and quoted constitutional judicial standard, the five justices would have ruled in the appellant's favor, causing the appellant to win that very important appeal case.
However, the five justices unfairly and unethically agreed to deny that appeal case - they totally ignored the clearly cited judicial standard in the Constitution of South Carolina at Art. I, Section 14.
They obviously ignored the cited judicial standard and pretended that the quoted standard did not actually exist in the Constitution. But the five justices knew that the clearly cited and quoted standard did exist!!!
That
extremely unfair, unethical, and despotic totalitarian self-serving
judicial action by five justices of the SC Supreme Court caused the
appellant to lose that appeal case, when it was very clear that it
should have won that very important appeal case.
That very important appeal case
proved that unfair, unethical, despotic totalitarian self-serving
judicial actions in South Carolina courts go all the way up into the
Supreme Court.
How
long have the judges and trial attorneys in South Carolina been getting
away with this grossly unfair, unethical, and disgustingly corrupt
despotic totalitarian monopoly type judicial situation? About 80 years!!!!!
Removal of a corrupt Circuit Court Judge
However, that very important appeal case was
apparently helpful in getting an extremely unfair, unethical,
egotistical autocratic despotic "elitist" corrupt circuit court judge in
Greenville County removed as a judge in South Carolina.
The appellant's pro
se filed appeal brief included a copy of the trial court transcript
(that had been purchased from the court reporter), and the transcript
provided indisputable official trial court record proof that the circuit
judge was so abusive and so unfair and unethically judicially despotic
toward Willoughby, as the defendant's pro se legal representative in
that motion hearing, that the circuit court judge should be removed
(fired).
The
judge had many years of experience as a solicitor (state prosecuting
attorney) in Greenville County, but he was so mentally despotic toward a
pro se litigant (Lonnie Willoughby) that he was unable to conduct that
motion hearing in a reasonably fair and ethical judicial manner. (As
president of the defendant SC corporation, Lonnie Willoughby was the pro
se litigant representative for the defendant corporation.)
The
transcript record clearly proved that the judge failed to provide basic
"due process of law standards" for the motion hearing. The judge was
so clearly despotic during the motion hearing that he was not ethically
fit to be a circuit court judge, or to be any other kind of judicial
system judge in South Carolina.
The
five South Carolina Supreme Court justices who reviewed the defendant corporation's pro se appeal brief
(detailed report about the trial court's motion hearing) did subsequently
remove (fire) the circuit court judge, as the appellant's appeal brief had strongly
requested.
Did
that appeal brief and the evidential transcript record of that motion
hearing help cause the judge's removal? Apparently so, but we will
never know the facts about that judge's removal.
More Recent Judicial Corruption
On May 7, 2020,
the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed a federal court case law
decision that had been conducted in an unfair and unethical criminal law
prosecution of two American citizens by federal prosecuting attorneys
and a federal judge.
That was the New Jersey case that has come to be known as "Bridgegate"
- about the involvement of political administrative personnel in New
Jersey acting to deliberately cause very serious traffic problems for
Fort Lee by closing lanes of traffic on the George Washington Bridge for
several days. You can research news reports about "Bridgegate." Case name: Kelly vs. U.S.
It is clear that the two defendants in that federal prosecution case
had caused grossly improper administrative actions that resulted in very
serious traffic problems that also caused serious harm to some people,
and was a frustrating and serious traffic delay situation for thousands
of people for several days.
We
need to consider that the case went through a detailed federal court
prosecution litigation, and then went through a federal appeals court
review by appellate court judges, before the federal convictions case
was finally submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari review.
The
odds of obtaining certiorari review by the high court in this situation
is extremely low, almost zero chance of review, but the high court did
choose to review this very high profile case.
However, as the high court stated, the serious administrative actions
that were harmful to many people that were reported by the federal
prosecutors did not violate the
criminal law statute(s) that the prosecuting attorneys had used to cause two very serious
prison term convictions in a federal court case.
Think about all of the prosecutor attorney's actions in the trial court
case and then consider the prosecutor attorney's actions in the
appellate court case. Now think about the judicial actions involved in
the trial court case and also think about the judicial actions of
multiple judges in the appellate court appeal case.
The
U.S. Supreme court judges unanimously concluded that the actions taken
by the prosecuting attorneys and the trial court judge were WRONG!!!!! They
also concluded that the prosecuting attorney actions in the appeal
case, and the judicial actions taken by the multiple appellate court
judges were also WRONG!!!!!
They reversed the two convictions that had been rendered in the trial court and reviewed and approved on appeal. WOW!!!!
That
clearly reversed (threw out) the unfair, unethical, and corrupt
prosecuting attorney actions that had been allowed and approved by the
trial court judge and then allowed and approved by the multiple
appellate court judges.
Lon Willoughby was not surprised at all about the lower court's actions (trial court and appellate court) being overturned entirely by the U.S. Supreme Court justices unanimously.
Lon's extensive litigation experiences (over 20+ years) had found that
such unfair, unethical, and corrupt attorney actions and judicial
actions are generally common practice in judicial systems in America.
Visitors
need to understand that almost all of those unfair, unethical, and
corrupt judicial actions actually become "the law of the case" because
they never get evaluated by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judges in the lower courts know that it is extremely unlikely that
their judicial actions will be evaluated by the U.S. Supreme Court
because they only hear about 45 t0 55 cases per year. Many of those
cases are mandatory hearings such as death penalty cases, legal disputes
between states, etc. That doesn't leave much of an opportunity for a
typical case to be selected for a certiorari review.
The
high court gets thousands of cases submitted to them each year for
certiorari review, but they deny almost all of those cases without a
hearing, such as the very important judicial hearing that was provided
for the high profile case Kelly vs. US.
After
20+ years of related litigation actions in a distant southern state,
causing about 17,000 hours of work for Lonnie Willoughby, Jr., he has
ZERO confidence in the fairness, honesty, or integrity of trial
attorneys, state prosecuting attorneys, or judges in the trial courts or
in the appellate courts (state courts or federal courts).
Lonnie
Willoughby realizes that there is very little chance for getting a
certiorari review of those kinds of unfair, unethical, and corrupt
judicial actions. Consequently, those unfair, unethical, and corrupt
judicial actions will become the "law of the case."
He
discovered that legal profession actions and judicial actions during
litigation processes are typically extremely self-serving and "truth and
justice" and "due process of law standards" are routinely ignored in a
disgustingly corrupt self-serving manner - usually ensuring that members
of the "legal brotherhood" win in almost all cases, no matter what the
evidence shows in each litigation action and no matter what the relevant
controlling legal standards should be for the adjudicated issues in the
litigation action.
Lonnie
Willoughby learned that the judicial systems in America (state and
federal courts) can easily be corrupted badly by trial court attorneys
(lawyers) and trial court judges cooperating "collusively" with each
other to cause the outcome for litigation that they "mutually agree to
for each case." The attorneys will usually follow the judge's lead on
those issues, but sometimes the attorneys involved (on both sides) can
persuade the judge to do what they mutually agree to as "the proper
outcome" of case.
It
can be an outrageously corrupt judicial system in the trial courts, and
the appellate courts may be just as corrupt as the trial courts. Lon
filed more than ten appeal cases in the distant southern state, and he
only won two of those appeals. With fair and ethical judges, he should have won all ten of those
appeals.
Other Judicial Issues To Consider