Judicial Info for SC Citizens

     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.  Lon Willoughby has learned that Magistrate court judges have a broad assortment of judicial duties and responsibilities.  Based upon his limited experiences with Magistrate's court actions, Lon realizes that the technical judicial information that Magistrate Court Judges need to learn can likely be learned on the job in a practical, sensible way by people who have above average intelligence levels. 

     Lon does not have a problem with that situation (not requiring Magistrate Court Judges to be law school graduates).  He understands that it helps reduce the cost of administering 300+ Magistrate's Courts within the state of South Carolina.

     However, the Magistrate Court Judge (Summary Court Judge) that presided during a 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 responsible efforts to present their case to the six-person jury in a one-day trial.

     The judge allowed, and effectively assisted, the defendant LLC type business in presenting a lot of very serious perjured testimony about issues that had not been noticed in their pleadings for litigation during the trial. 

     The judge failed to make responsible judicial objections to those extremely unfair and unethical defendant's surprise "ambush during trial" defensive actions.  She failed to advise the defendant LLC that their defensive testimony must be confined to specific litigation issues that were properly noticed for trial in their defensive pleadings. 

     The one-day jury trial turned out to be a fraud and a sham jury trial proceeding, due to the judge's judicial incompetence and a lot of "ambush type" perjured testimony by the defendant's witnesses during trial. 

     There were also some lazy irresponsible actions by the six-person jury (that had actually been encouraged and motivated by the incompetent trial court judge) when the six jurors failed to responsible read the plaintiff's detailed 23-page Complaint pleading document, and the jurors also failed to read the plaintiff's 17-page Counterclaim Response to the defendant's extremely frivolous Counterclaim pleading. 

     Both of those very important litigation documents were major part's of the plaintiff's case during the trial, and both documents had been given to each juror appropriately by the plaintiff's trial court litigation representative during the trial (the author herein). 

     Even though the plaintiff (ABC's of Health, Inc.) managed to win partially in the botched up sham and fraud of a jury trial, there were major deficiencies in the jurors' trial verdict.  Month's later, the author herein learned that the judge had improperly withheld the jurors' calculation sheet that showed how the jury had arrived at their monetary award to the plaintiff for the trial.

     After the trial, for several weeks, the plaintiff then had to go through many hours of multiple post-trial motion actions that progressively moved the trial court judge to agree to schedule another jury trial to replace the badly botched up fraud and sham of a jury trial. 

     The unfair, unethical, incompetent, dishonest, and corrupt despotic judge would not acknowledge any of the clearly deficient trial court judicial actions that were presented in numbered order in the plaintiff's progressive post-trial motions for a new trial.  She repeatedly refused to grant any of the plaintiff's successive progressive motions that requested a new jury trial.

     Finally, the plaintiff was left with no viable option except to pay the $150 filing fee and file a timely Notice of Appeal in the local circuit court for the one-day judicial fiasco of a trial. 

     The plaintiff also took appropriate actions to have all of the Magistrate's Court records for the trial court case to be transferred to the circuit court as the Record on Appeal for said appeal action in the Greenville County Circuit Court.

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 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 replacement trial) than to reverse a similar verdict in a Magistrate Court's bench trial (with no jury).  

     The appellant's complex appeal brief (Memorandum of Law) was subsequently timely amended and it 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 badly botched up sham and fraud of a trial proceeding that occurred in the Magistrate's Court below).

     The multiple relevant case law citations and relevant law case quotations that Lonnie Willoughby presented in the appellant's Amended Memorandum of Law showed an exceptionally strong factual and relevant 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.  They failed to file a pro se responsive legal brief in the appeal. Therefore, the business LLC (respondent) did not object to, or oppose in any way, any statements of fact or statements of law that had been presented in the appellant's detailed Amended Memorandum of Law which 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, apparently failed to responsibly read the appellant's carefully developed exceptionally strong, 11 reasons arguments for a new trial because the circuit court judge (sitting as an appellate judge) autocratically and despotically dismissed all of the appellant's appeal argument issues. 

     The extremely unfair, unethical, and dishonest judge failed to find any reasonable basis for a new trial, in spite of all of the solid documentary evidence that strongly support that outcome for the appeal.  In addition to those strong evidence based reasons for a new trial, the plaintiff's Amended Memorandum of Law also presented a series of exceptionally strong legal arguments that supported the multiple specific argument reasons for the appellate judge to order that a new trial be granted, as clearly requested in the appellant's very competent detailed Amended Memorandum of Law. 

     It is clear that the appellate judge 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 basis that was presented to justify a new trial. 

     The appellant's appeal brief contained several citations of relevant appellate court law case decisions and showed relevant quotations of legal standards from those very important South Carolina Appellate Court case law decisions.  Those referenced South Carolina Appellate Court's case law decisions showed several relevant reasons for the judge to grant a new jury 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 process can be in the State of South Carolina. 

     With an abundance of documentary trial 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 jury 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 timely filed a Notice of Appeal of that judicial decision in the S.C. Appellate Court ($250.00 filing fee) - located in Columbia, South Carolina.

     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 based on previous court case law decisions that were clearly in 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. 

     That 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 unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions by trial court judges. 

     Any judicial "errors" that would get reported on appeal for an appellant client would be sanitized and watered-down so much that it would likely be considered "harmless judicial error."

     Trial court judges in South Carolina know that of course, and they understand that they can be unfair, unethical, and corrupt with trial court litigants and get away with it every time.

Two Appeal Cases From A Distant State

     In the appellant's appeal brief that Lonnie Willoughby filed pro se for Appellant ABC's of Health, Inc., (challenging the high court's unfair monopolistic judicial actions) he also reported two appeal cases that Lonnie Willoughby had previously won in a distant southern state.  Those two appeal case decisions were very relevant to the argument issues reported in Willoughby's pro se legal brief for the instant South Carolina Appellate Court case.  

     One of those relevant appeal cases was a published appellate court case law decision from 1995, and Lonnie 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. in the instant S.C. Appellate Court appeal case.

Motion For Summary Judgment

     The first 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 Motion for Summary Judgment decision (in the distant state) falsely and fraudulently claimed that Lonnie Willoughby's Counterclaim action against his former defense attorney was time-barred by the Statute of Limitations.

     Non-resident litigant Lonnie Willoughby had scheduled a court reporter to attend and transcribe all actions for that Motion for Summary Judgment hearing in the circuit court judge's judicial chambers (in the distant state).  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 was 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 when the Counterclaim was filed - due to Willoughby's appeal circumstances. 

    That appeal case affected the Statute of Limitations timing deadline for the filing of Willoughby's counterclaim against his former defense attorney for deceit, fraud, and legal malpractice (actions and in-actions that had been involved in an equity court case that had occurred in that county back in 1989). 

     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 his judicial decision should deny the motion.

      Lonnie Willoughby traveled the several hundred miles back to his home in Mauldin, SC, knowing that the judge should deny the attorney's Motion for Summary Judgment.  He realized that if that motion was improperly approved, it would dismiss Lonnie Willoughby's Counterclaim against his former defense trial attorney for deceit, fraud, and legal malpractice. 

     However, when Lonnie Willoughby subsequently received the judge's order via U.S. Mail regarding the circuit court's motion hearing, the judge had willfully failed to comply with the three controlling appellate court cases that Willoughby had given to the judge during that motion hearing.  The judge had improperly ruled in favor of the attorney's Motion for Summary Judgment. 

     The judge's order had dismissed 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 one-day civil equity court trial (no jury) in September 1989 that the attorney should have won for co-trustee Lonnie 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 viable judicial option except to comply with each of those controlling decisions - all three appellate court decisions reported the same outcome for such circumstances regarding a Counterclaim filing date. 

     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 circuit court's judicial decision when they both totally ignored the three relevant controlling appellate court case law decisions that Willoughby had given 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 court's 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 were 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 (the transcript that Lon had purchased from the court reporter that he had responsibly 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). 

     It is important to report that the three-judge appellate court panel did not responsibly initiate an investigation of the criminal law violations that were clearly involved with the attorney's deceitful unethical litigation actions and the judge's deceitful and unethical litigation actions in drafting, 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 a very important 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 disgustingly corrupt the judicial system can be anytime judges choose to cover up unfair, unethical, and very serious criminal type litigation actions by members of the"legal brotherhood." (attorneys and judges)

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 in 1994 by an extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt County Court Judge and the local county's "state prosecuting attorney" who had prosecuted the outrageously unfair, unethical, and fraudulent Criminal Contempt of Court Complaint against Lonnie Willoughby (who lived in Mauldin, SC). 

     The Criminal Contempt of Court Complaint alleged that Lonnie Willoughby had violated a Circuit Court Injunctive Order when he wrote a brief partial-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 involved here had unfairly and improperly forbidden defendant Lonnie Willoughby to file any more pleadings in the active circuit court case in that county. 

NOTE:  A pleading is a document that attempts to move the litigation process forward in some way - such as a motion that requests some specific judicial action in the case.  Therefore, Willoughby's brief letter of communications to a local judge was clearly "not a pleading" and it was not filed in the circuit court (which is the court that the Injunctive Order was applicable to).

Flashback Information

About the Injunctive Order

     The extremely unfair and unethical successor circuit court judge had made several unfair, unethical, and fraudulent statements of fact in that Injunctive Order to ruthlessly tar-brush non-resident defendant Lonnie Willoughby badly and severely prejudice the Injunctive Order against defendant Willoughby, in the event that he should appeal the extremely unfair, unethical, and fraudulent Injunctive Order.

     That successor circuit court judge had replaced the previous circuit court judge that was recused from the same case due to unfair and unethical judicial actions that were alleged by defendant Lonnie Willoughby in his timely and proper motion to recuse the judge - which complied fully with proper procedures.

     The successor judge ruthlessly retaliated against defendant Lonnie Willoughby for having caused the recusal of the former circuit court judge, and for Willoughby's filing of an appeal that exposed to the appellate court the criminal-minded collusive actions of that circuit court judge and the attorney that was also involved in that criminal-minded judicial action. (Filing a clearly corrupt and fraudulent judicial order is a crime in that state.)

     The successor circuit court judge clearly did not want to have to contend with any more of defendant Lonnie Willoughby's responsible pleading reports about unfair, unethical, and corrupt attorney and judicial actions in the ongoing circuit court case. 

     On the same date as his ruthless retaliation "Injunctive Order" the successor circuit court judge also transferred the circuit court civil action case down to the county court for further litigation actions related to the plaintiff law firm's still remaining lawsuit against non-resident defendant Lonnie Willoughby. 

     The plaintiff law firm was attempting to collect about $3,300 in attorney fees that Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. had refused to pay due to the former defense attorney's extremely deficient, unfair, unethical, corrupt, and fraudulent "defense attorney" services during the equity court trial conducted on September 8, 1989. 

     The only reason that the case was in the circuit court, rather than in the county court (where the case had been properly filed), was because of Lon Willoughby's Counterclaim against the plaintiff law firm and his former defense attorney. 

     The dollar value involved with the Counterclaim complaint greatly exceeded the dollar value limitation of the county court's subject-matter jurisdiction.  Therefore, the initial county court case and the related Counterclaim had been properly transferred to the circuit court's jurisdiction.

     The Summary Judgment Order issued in June 1993 had dismissed Lonnie Willoughby's Counterclaim complaint so there was now no apparent reason for the case to remain in the circuit court.  The case could be transferred back to the county court.

     At that point in time, Willoughby's appeal about the corrupt Motion for Summary Judgment order was in the appellate court but that appeal had not been decided by the appellate court.

    NOTES:  Non-resident defendant Lonnie Willoughby did timely file an appeal of the extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt and fraudulent "Injunctive Order." 

     His appeal brief argued that there was no valid evidence in the limited records of those litigation events to support the circuit court judge's unfair, unethical, and fraudulent tar-brushing false statements of fact contained in his unfair, unethical, fraudulent, and improper Injunctive Order. 

     Months later, Lonnie Willoughby lost that appeal, due to the judge's false statements in the Injunctive Order.  The unfair, unethical, and fraudulent "injunctive Order" was affirmed by the appellate court judges with no written opinion for the appeal. 

     The three-judge appellate panel simply white-washed the unfair, unethical, and fraudulent actions of the successor circuit court judge.  They obviously "believed" his unfair, unethical, and fraudulent tar-brushing statements of fact against defendant Lonnie Willoughby (just as that judge had apparently intended).

     The successor circuit court judge realized (when he wrote that unfair, unethical, and fraudulent Injunctive Order), and the three appellate court judges realized, and Lonnie Willoughby also realized that the "Injunctive Order" had effectively swept away Lonnie Willoughby's very valid and very strong Counterclaim case against the plaintiff law firm and co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby's former defense attorney. 

     Due to the effects of the Injunctive Order, Lonnie Willoughby could no longer prosecute his Counterclaim case pro se in the circuit court (even though he later won his appeal of the fraudulent Summary Judgment order and got his Counterclaim case reinstated in the circuit court for further litigation).  

     Lonnie Willoughby had sufficient litigation experience to realize that it would be essentially impossible for him to find a competent trial attorney in the local area willing to represent him in his Counterclaim complaint against a local law firm and it owner attorney (Lonnie Willoughby's former defense attorney).

     All of the judge's involved knew (trial court judge and the appellate court judges), and Lonnie Willoughby knew, that it would be impossible for him to find a trial attorney who would responsibly present a "fraud, deceit, and legal malpractice" Counterclaim complaint litigation case against a prominent local law firm and its prominent attorney owner.  

     There may be only one or two attorneys in an entire state who might be willing to attempt to do that for a wealthy resident client, and they certainly are not going to do that for an unknown non-resident client who lives in a distant state. 

     They certainly are not going to agree to represent a distant  out-of-state client who has also demonstrated that he is capable enough litigation-wise to represent himself pro se in complex litigation actions, including several motion hearings, a Summary Judgement litigation proceeding before a circuit court judge, successfully filed a complex motion for recusal of a sitting circuit court judge, and then did the complex and difficult legal work pro se of preparing and filing and prosecuting successfully an appeal case that exposed the unfair, unethical, fraudulent, and corrupt actions of the circuit court judge and the local prominent law firm and its owner attorney that were collusively involved in the criminal-minded fraudulent Summary Judgment decision.

     Even if Lon Willoughby could locate an attorney at some distant location in that state who said that he would competently and responsibly represent Lon Willoughby in that type of legal malpractice litigation, Lon would have to contend with the very high costs involved with that type of litigation action. 

     Lon would also have to consider that the attorney would likely betray Counterclaim Plaintiff Lonnie Willoughby during the litigation process, just as two previous prominent attorneys had betrayed him during much less difficult litigation circumstances.

     1.  The first attorney betrayal was in the civil equity court one-day circuit court bench trial (September 8, 1989) - the corrupt prominent defense attorney that betrayed co-trustee defendant Lonnie Willoughby and was later involved in the extremely unfair, unethical, corrupt, and fraudulent Summary Judgment litigation. 

     2.  The second attorney betrayal was the appellant attorney that was supposed to represent Appellant Co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby's in the appeal case that followed the unfair, unethical, and outrageously corrupt circuit court litigation on 9/8/1989.

     In essence, Lonnie Willoughby realized that the "Injunctive Order" was a fatal blow to his very valid and very strong Counterclaim case - which could have brought him a judgment of $600,000 or more - with punitive damages considered properly.

Flash Forward to the

Criminal Contempt of Court Issue

     Lonnie Willoughby did not appear and participate in the "trial" scheduled for that prosecution in the County Court because Lon realized that this was an extremely unfair, unethical, fraudulent prosecution case, and if he appeared at the trial, he would quickly be arrested and incarcerated in the local county jail (for months).

     However, by USPS mail,defendant Willoughby timely appealed the County Court Order that denied his Motion to Dismiss the Criminal Contempt of Court prosecution case against him.

     Appellant Willoughby's appeal brief argued that the alleged contempt of court action was not a violation of the circuit court's Injunctive Order.  Mailing a simple partial-page short 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 the relevant circuit court case.  (The circuit court case involved with the Injunctive Order.)

     Consequently, there was no violation of the Circuit Court's Injunctive Order (that had improperly denied non-resident litigant Lonnie Willoughby his constitutionally protected right to file pro se pleadings in the Circuit Court case). 

     Appellant 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 county's "state prosecuting attorney" to attempt to prosecute non-resident litigant 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 so Lonnie Willoughby had not attempted to file any pleading in the inactive circuit court case. 

     Defendant Lonnie Willoughby did have an appeal in progress for that circuit court case, but that appeal decision had not been rendered at that time.  (That was Lon Willoughby's appeal that reported the fraudulent Summary Judgment Order.)

     Lonnie Willoughby won his appeal case about the Criminal Contempt of Court prosecution - the appeal case where he was opposing, in his pro se capacity, the state's local county "prosecuting attorney."  The single circuit court judge, sitting as the appellate court judge, ruled in Lonnie Willoughby's favor in that appeal about the Criminal Contempt of Court prosecution. 

     The judge dismissed the Criminal Contempt of Court prosecution case against non-resident Lonnie Willoughby - primarily because the county court judge did not have subject-matter jurisdiction of the alleged violation of the circuit court's Injunctive Order.  If there was a violation of the circuit court's Injunctive Order, that alleged violation would have to be prosecuted in the circuit court, not in the improper 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. in the South Carolina Appellate Court case, 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 fraudulent Motion for Summary Judgment appeal decision). 

     That 1994 circuit court appeal decision was filed in a storage warehouse and Lonnie Willoughby did not have several hours of time to search for that old court record document that was about 16 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, against the local county "state prosecuting attorney."

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 each of those appeal cases if he had been unable or unwilling to spend several thousand dollars on attorney representation fees for each of those appeal cases.

     The South Carolina judicial system would have dismissed both of his appeal cases unless he had retained attorney services to represent him in each of those two separate appeal cases.

     Even if Lonnie Willoughby had been able and willing to spend several thousand dollars on each of those two 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 manner against extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt trial judges?

     The first appeal case involved an extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded circuit court judge and a local extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded attorney. (The extremely fraudulent Summary Judgment order appeal case.)

     In the second appeal, an extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt county court judge was involved (Criminal Contempt of Court case against non-resident Willoughby), and that case also involved an unfair, unethical, and corrupt local county "state prosecuting attorney?"  (Similar to a solicitor in South Carolina.) 

     Based upon Lon Willoughby's previous experiences with a very prominent and experienced attorney (20+ years of trial court experiences) in a civil 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 because he would have very likely been betrayed by the appeal attorney in each of those appeals. 

     Remember that Lonnie Willoughby had been ruthlessly betrayed by his attorney in each of the cases reported previously herein (the circuit court trial court case in September 1989 and the appeal case that followed that extremely corrupt trial court case).

     In the Motion for Summary Judgment case reported above, Lon 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, Lonnie Willoughby  would have had to spend months in a county jail when he had actually done nothing wrong. That situation would have totally destroyed the corporately owned independent health and wellness products retail store, causing him to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars that were invested in that business.

     Lon Willoughby's pro se reporting of those two relevant 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 by Willoughby, the South Carolina Appellate Court judges apparently 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 SC appeal cases filed by Willoughby, the judges in the Appellate Court (and in the S.C. Supreme Court) ignored their clear duty to acknowledge and comply with the directive in Art. I, Section 14 of the Constitution of South Carolina. The SC  Constitution clearly protects the right of every person to be fully heard in his defense by himself or by his counsel or by both.

     Article I, Section 14 of the SC Constitution makes it very clear to persons of ordinary intelligence that the Constitution clearly intended to prevent the current judicial situation - 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 two times, 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 any 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 stubbornly refuse to honestly and ethically acknowledge any serious judicial error in the Magistrate's Court proceeding below. 

     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 extremely 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 corrupt judicial actions were extremely unfair, unethical, and despotic 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 and despotically 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 in 2003) requested that the circuit court order be reversed. The Final Brief of Appellant 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 the appellant 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 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 Exposed

     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 a review, but the high court judges did vote 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 to 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) persuade the judge to do what they mutually agree to as "the proper outcome" of the 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 ten appeal cases in the distant southern state, and he only won two of those appeals.  With fair and impartial appellate court judges, he should have won all ten of those appeals.

Other Judicial Issues To Consider