Judicial Info - Original

     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.

     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.

     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