Judicial Reform Project


 

Helping Patriotic Americans Achieve the American Dream

 

Freedom, Fairness, Equality, Justice, Opportunity,

Health & Happiness

 

Helping Members Become All They Can Be


     and helping them Achieve Their Ultimate Potential


Should American Patriots Be Very Concerned About the Judiciary?

   

       Lon Willoughby, the founder and director of Americans  4

Justice-SC, enjoyed his 83 birthday on June 5, 2019.  He has

acquired a lot of first-hand experience with the judicial

systems (state and federal courts), having spent more than

18,000 hours conducting legal research, drafting and writing

legal briefs and presenting them for trial court actions and

appellate court actions, and actually litigating in trial courts

and appellate courts.


     He exposed a lot of unfair, unethical, and criminal-

minded judicial actions that were taken against him. 


Lon has litigated pro se (representing himself - without

attorney assistance) before seven trial court judges in a

distant State, and he has conducted fourteen (14) appeal

cases about unfair, unethical trial court litigation actions that

occurred in the distant State (both state and federal court

related litigation actions).     

     It was necessary for Lon to litigate pro se because he had discovered that he was litigating in an extremely unfair and unethical judicial system in a distant State, and he had been unable to locate any trial attorney who had sufficient courage and integrity to agree to help him expose the outrageously unfair and unethical, criminal-minded judicial actions that had been taken against him, and were continuing to be taken against him in a continuous ongoing manner at every opportunity.  

     Litigating pro se enabled Lon to use legal briefs, filed during the ongoing civil litigation process, to responsibly report and expose the unfair, unethical, and  corrupt manner in which judicial actions had been taken against him by "officers of the court"  (trial attorneys and trial judges).

 Loss of Income Due to

 Litigation in a Distant State

     During 20+ years, Lon was involved in ongoing litigation actions in a distant southern state,  while he needed to be working six days each week in his self-employed health store business in SC (work 80 to 90 hours per week). 

      Lon's pro se litigation actions required that he be self-employed because his work schedule was unpredictable.  He had to have a very flexible work schedule because he was being severely harassed by a continuing barrage of litigation actions by an extremely unethical, criminal-minded attorney in the distant State.  Consequently, from 1990 to the year 2010, Lon never knew, from one day to the next, what additional litigation action legal paperwork would come in the mail that day.  He therefore had to have the flexibility to be able to immediately begin the legal research necessary to respond to each new legal actions that was forced upon him by said attorney.

      Needless to say, twenty+ years of ongoing litigation actions has caused Lon to loose a lot of income that could have been earned while spending 15,000+ hours involved with said litigation actions.  If we multiply a modest $15.00 per hour of income times 15,000 hours, we get $225,000 of lost income.  Lon's actual loss of income exceeded $300,000 due to his twenty+ years of efforts to report and expose the extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal minded   judicial actions that he was being subjected to as a litigant in the distant State. 

Travel Required by Litigation in a Distant State

     From May 1989 to December 1993, Lon had to make numerous  trips to the distant State to participate in several motion hearings, a deposition, and one trial. Those trips caused Lon to travel about  9,000 miles by personal automobile. 

     During one of those  trips, Lon was involved in an automobile accident that almost  killed him and his wife, Janie.  They were traveling together to the distant state so Lon could participate in a very important motion hearing the following day. 

     Janie was driving their Mercury station wagon so Lon could spend additional hours studying legal books and legal paperwork that would help him prepare for the motion hearing that would occur the next day. 

     They were traveling on an Interstate Highway in a rain storm when the traffic in front of Janie stopped due to extremely heavy rain. Janie had stopped right behind a very large "furniture moving van" that had stopped in front of her. 

     Unfortunately, an oil tanker truck that was behind Janie was not able to stop before crashing into the back of Janie's vehicle, pushing the station wagon into the rear end and up under the very large van in front of Janie. 

     The  station wagon was forced under the van almost up to the windshield.  Janie and Lon would have been immediately decapitated if the force had been sufficient to push the car about three feet further under the moving van. 

     Fortunately, their seat belts and shoulder harnesses prevented them from being catapulted into the windshield.  However, Janie was forced into the steering wheel and suffered head and facial injuries, hand injuries, and chest injuries.

      Lon suffered chest and waist injuries from the seat belt and shoulder harness constraint forces.  Their like-new station wagon was a total wreck because it was severely damaged from the front end and the rear end collisions. 

     An Emergency Medic Team arrived quickly, and they put Janie on a stretcher and transported her and Lon in the ambulance to a local hospital for x-rays and emergency treatments.  Fortunately, their injuries did not appear to be serious enough to demand  hospitalization, and they were released a few hours later so they could continue their travel to the distant State. 

     Although they were in a small town, with no commercial vehicle rental offices available, Lon managed to rent an old "used car" from the service station owner who had provided wrecker towing service for their demolished station wagon.

     The service station owner was very helpful to Lon and Janie in this regard, and this rental situation would enable them to continue their travel toward the distant State.  They transferred their belongings into the old car and resumed their travels late in the day (about 6:00 PM).    

     It was very important for Lon to participate in the motion hearing that was scheduled for the following day in the distant State.  They barely had enough time left to travel the remaining distance, and they did arrive at the courthouse in the distant State just in time for Lon to participate in said motion hearing. 

     Janie's head injuries caused both eyes to swell badly and one swelled so much that she was unable to see with that eye for two days.  She had ugly black and blue splotches on her face and forehead and she had two ugly black eyes.  It took more than six months for Janie's facial bruises and injuries to repair to the point of not being very noticeable.  

     After the motion hearing, Lon and Janie visited the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the distant State to report some of the extremely unfair and unethical judicial actions that had been taken against Lon Willoughby by "officers of the court" in the small town about 70 miles away from the FBI Headquarters.  Lon had planned this visit before leaving South Carolina, and he had prepared a box of legal document records to provide an evidential basis for Lon's complaints about said judicial actions.  

       Remember that Janie's face was black and blue and one eye was swelled shut due to the injuries sustained in the automobile accident the previous day.  She was still in a state of emotional shock at the time they met with the FBI agent.  The agent listened for a few minutes as Lon tried to briefly describe the extremely unfair and unethical manner in which he had been treated by a series of trial court judges in the ongoing litigation process.  

      The FBI agent was obviously impatient as he listened to Lon present an overview of the litigation problems. He cut Lon off abruptly and stated that Lon had not described anything that the FBI would investigate. 

     The agent did not want to see any of Lon's legal document records; he explained that they had limited funds available for investigations and they would not spend funds investigating Lon's complaints.  

     That meeting lasted only a few minutes, and they left the office with Lon being very disappointed that he had not been allowed to file a responsible report about the extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal manner in which the state litigation was being conducted against non-resident Lon Willoughby.  

      Later that day, Lon had to rent a commercial rental sedan in this large city (in the distant State) so they would have a vehicle to drive back to South Carolina.  Lon drove the old rental car and Janie drove the new rental car about 180 miles to return the old used car to the service station owner.  

     It was still raining lightly and Janie was having to drive under those conditions with one eye swollen shut.  They arrived at their destination just in time to turn in the old rental car before the service station was closed for the day.  Lon and Janie then drove the other rental car as they traveled back to their home in Greenville County, South Carolina.

      Over a period of weeks, Lon communicated with and negotiated with insurance companies regarding the physical injuries that Janie and Lon sustained and to obtain payment for a replacement automobile for their wrecked Mercury station wagon.  

     At that point in time, Lon was so disgusted with the extremely unfair and unethical nature of trial attorneys and trial judges that Lon and Janie mutually agreed to avoid getting attorneys involved in the liability settlement process.  

   Lon negotiated with the insurance companies directly, bypassing all litigation actions, to arrive at a mutually agreed upon modest settlement with the insurance companies for damages and injuries due to the vehicle accident.      

     Could attorneys have gotten them a much better settlement?  Probably so.  However, Lon and Janie did not want to have anything to do with trial attorneys or trial judges -  they were both disgusted with the judicial system and its obvious lack of ethics, fairness, honesty, impartiality, and judicial integrity.

  The trip reported above is just one incident, out of many situations, that collectively caused Lon and Janie a lot of trouble and a lot of expense because Lon was being subjected to extremely unfair and unethical litigation actions in the distant State's judicial systems (the trial court and in the appellate court).

     The situation that started out as a family dispute had turned into a nightmare of litigation actions because of the abusive harassment litigation tactics being used against Lon Willoughby by the defense attorney that Lon had counterclaim sued for deceit, fraud, and legal malpractice. 

Lessons To Be Learned From These Experiences

      Lon and Janie learned that being involved in litigation in a distant State can cause a series of difficult situations to cope with due to the recurring travel requirements -- multiple trips to the distant State to participated in numerous litigation actions (motion hearings, depositions, productions of documents, trials, etc.). 

      As Lon experienced, many trips to the distant State may be  necessary because numerous litigation actions can be used to abuse, coerce, harass, and intimidate a non-resident litigant into "giving up" on the litigation process. 

     That situation can become very frustrating and very expensive when extremely unfair and unethical collusion occurs between the "local" judge(s) and the "local" attorney(s), as happened several times for Lon Willoughby with a series of seven judges from 1989 to the present time (August 2005). 

      Consequently, Lon and Janie will not voluntarily travel to distant locations, not even to adjoining states.  They will not even travel to distant locations within South Carolina because Lon and Janie now have no confidence at all in the fairness, honesty, impartiality, and integrity of any judicial system in America.

     They choose to avoid the potential risk of being subjected to litigation actions in a distant location if anything should occur there (automobile accident, a serious traffic ticket, any kind of dispute action, etc.). 

     They understand  that many situations could occur in a distant location that might subject them to the jurisdiction of a distant state or federal court; they therefore wisely choose to avoid unnecessary risks by simple choosing to avoid any distant travel that is not exceptionally important.  

American Government and

 American History Classes

     Ironically, Janie is a high school teacher of  American Government and American History.  She is qualified to teach all of the other social studies course: civics, economics, geography, psychology, and sociology. Janie earned her Masters Degree in Education at Furman University in Greenville South Carolina. 

     Janie's advanced education in American History enabled her to have a good understanding of the tremendous sacrifices made by the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, and the sacrifices and suffering that occurred for their wives and children.

     During the Revolutionary War that followed, homes of the 56 signers were routinely burned and wives and children were hunted by the British military.  Some of the wives and children had to live in the forest like animals while they were trying to avoid and evade capture by the British military.

      Janie also understands the great sacrifices of many other Americans, men and women, and many children.  Many colonials  worked and fought against superior English military forces to defend and protect the young America from English control. 

     In addition, Janie understands that many individuals have  worked valiantly, at great personal sacrifice, to expose and help correct serious unfair and unreasonable conditions and situations in our American society.  

     Consequently, Janie has strongly supported Lon's determined efforts to expose the extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded judicial actions that he has been repeatedly subjected to in a ruthless and malicious manner during the past fifteen years.

How Unfair, Unethical, and 

Corrupt Can the Judiciary Be?

      Criminal-minded judicial retaliation actions were taken against Lon initially because he had voluntarily helped his parents (during 1982 through 1985) establish a joint-assets "living trust" estate plan that would subsequently minimize federal estate taxes and probate expenses for their substantial estate assets (located in the distant State). 

     Those actions were legal, responsible, and appropriate for his family's estate planning needs, but Lon was ruthlessly abused, coerced, harassed, persecuted, and punished by a series of seven judges and several attorneys because he responsibly helped his parents develop an appropriate trust estate plan.  

     Lon had an interest in estate planning as far back as the 1970's, and he had acquired an understanding of what could be done to minimize federal estate taxes and minimize probate expenses with proper estate planning. 

     However, Lon was not an attorney and he did not know how to draft the legal documents that would be necessary to establish and fund a living trust estate plan. Lon realized that his parents needed professional estate planning services to establish the trust estate plan that would be appropriate for his parents' complex estate situation, and he recommended that his parents consult with their local bank's trust officer (in the distant State).

    Lon understood that the trust officer could probably recommend a nearby estate planning attorney that could help Mr. and Mrs. Willoughby develop an appropriate "living trust" estate plan.

      Lon's parents did consult with their bank's trust officer and they consulted with the attorney recommended to prepare inter vivos trust documents (living trust). 

   The attorney subsequently prepared two mirror-image "living trust" documents, one for Mr. Willoughby and one for Mrs. Willoughby.  However, he did not help them understand the essential need to transfer assets into the trust estate.

      Lon knew enough about trust estate plans to understand that a "living trust" estate plan without any assets is basically a useless and worthless estate plan.  It will not minimize federal estate taxes and it will not minimize probate expenses and it will not minimize probate administration time (usually takes many months to several years to complete).  In fact, without any funds, the trust estate cannot actually accomplish anything of benefit or value.

  Consequently, Lon  consulted with other attorneys and certified public accountants (CPA) about completing the trust estate plan. Over time (1982-1985), Lon consulted with six attorneys and three CPA's as he tried to get the estate planning completed in the distant State. His father's health was very poor in 1982, and he was subject to have another heart attack and die at any time.

      Lon's father had already had multiple heart attacks, and he had a stroke in the spring of 1982 that left him totally paralyzed on the left side of his body.  He could not control any movement in his left arm or hand and he could not control movement in his left leg or foot.   Lonnie Sr. could not even roll over in bed without a lot of assistance.  Fortunately, Lonnie Jr. was quite knowledgeable about some holistic health issues, such as how the complex lymphatic system worked, and he was able to help his dad in numerous ways cope more effectively with his very serious health conditions.

      Lon Willoughby understood that it was very important to  complete the trust estate plan as quickly as possible because any federal estate tax benefits or probate process benefits available would be lost if the trust estate plan was not implemented before Mr. Lonnie Willoughby, Sr. died.

     Over time, Lon learned that most attorneys do not take the   specialized training courses that are needed to understand estate planning legal and taxation issues.  Consequently, Lon was not able to locate an attorney or CPA in the local area in the distant State who could (or would) help him complete the asset allocations needed to make the trust estate plan work properly. 

     This frustrating situation and the urgent time situation left Lon with no viable choice except to purchase estate planning books and quickly learn how to complete the complex estate planning process without attorney assistance. 

   He studied estate planning books and learned how to prepare an essential amendment to the Trust Agreement and also learned how to prepare asset transfer documents that were needed to transfer substantial assets into the trust estate. 

     The complex trust estate planning process was completed in December 1985 with appropriate assets transferred to Mr. Willoughby's trust estate.  Lon's father died in November 1986 (another heart attack), and the trust estate plan was fully operational at that time.   

    Lon's estate planning actions were proven to be very successful when the federal estate tax calculations were made to file documents with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for Mr. Willoughby's estate. 

     The estate planning actions that had been taken enabled Lon's parents to legally avoid about $225,000 in federal estate taxes for the joint estate value, and the family would also be able to avoid about $60,000 to $90,000 in probate expenses for a joint estate value of about $1,200,000. 

   It is clear that the estate plan worked exceptionally well because  no federal estate taxes would be due on the entire Willoughby estate value.  In addition, probate expenses were minimized for Mr. Willoughby's personal estate value (less than $800.00  total expenses) and that including property appraisal fees and two attorney consultations.  Probate administration time was also minimized; the judicial probate process was completed the day after filing documents with the probate court judge.    

     Completing the probate process in such a short period of time for an estate value equal to Mr. Willoughby's personal estate value is very rare; only a small percentage of attorneys in America know how to accomplish estate planning that is this effective. 

     Would an attorney knowledgeable about estate planning accomplish this unusual feat for his/her client, if the attorney actually knew how?  Not likely because attorneys want to get the very generous probate administration fees that are routinely allowed for the "normal" probate process (6% to 8% of probate-able asset value in the distant State). 

Calculation:  6% of 1,200,000 is $72,000  

  8% of 1,200,000 is $96,000

      Essentially all of those attorney probate fees would be lost

(by some attorney) if an attorney accomplished estate

planning as effective as the plan that Lon Willoughby

completed for his parents.

    

     Let's reconsider the estate planning attorney that drafted

the initial trust documents for Mr. and Mrs. Willoughby.  He did

not help them understand how to make the inter vivos trust

estate provide any benefits of any kind.


     He did not help them legally avoid unnecessary

federal estate taxes, or minimize probate expenses, or

minimize probate processing time, etc.


     If Lon had not learned how to complete the estate planning

actions that had been started by the attorney, the very

important benefits listed above would not have occurred for

the jointly-held Willoughby marital estate value, and the estate

value would have been subjected the the very expensive and

time consuming typical probate court process.


      In January 1983, when the two trust documents were first

implemented, Lon's parents appointed him to be one of the

two co-trustees of their individual trust estates in the distant

State (the attorney drafted mirror-image inter vivos

trusts/living trusts).  Mr. Willoughby was in very poor health

at that time, but his mind was still very sharp. 


     Lon Jr. and his wife Janie moved to the distant State in July

1983 to enable Lonnie Jr. take over management of the

Willoughby business (a 44 unit apartment complex) and also

help both parents in their efforts to cope with Lon's father's

invalid health condition (due to his stroke in 1982).


     Lon was able to help his dad a lot with his invalid health

condition due to Lon's serious interest in health and nutrition

issues that had started many years before the heart attack 

and stroke combination that occurred in the spring of 1982.


     Lon and Janie worked very hard (70 to 100 hours per

week) for many months in 1983 and 1984.  They got the

apartment complex business in good shape so it could

possibly be sold. 


     Fortunately, the business was sold in February 1985 and

Lon and Janie subsequently moved back to their home in

South Carolina.  Lon's father subsequently died in November

1986.    

Trust Administration Dispute and Trial in 1989

       A trust administration dispute arose in 1988.  One of the

beneficiaries of said trust estate, living in this distant State, sued Co-

trustee Lon Willoughby and this forced him to litigate in the distant

State during 1989.  That is when the distant State's "officers of the

court" got involved and learned about Lon's "non-attorney" estate

planning actions in completing the Willoughby trust estate plan. 


          A one day "Equity Court" (non-jury) trial was conducted in

September 1989 with Co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. as the

defendant in said case.  During the seven-hour trial, Co-trustee Lon

Willoughby was required to testify for several hours because the

plaintiff's attorney introduced five surprise "ambush" complaints

against Co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, while the trial was in progress.

     The filed complaint against him contained only two complaints

(the Plaintiff's Complaint pleadings)


     The additional five surprise ambush "smoking gun"

complaints should not have been allowed into the trial because

Defendant Co-trustee Lon Willoughby had not been properly

"noticed" (notified) before the trial day about those additional

complaints.  All complaint issues are supposed to be presented in the

pleading filed by the plaintiff (the plaintiff's attorney). 


     In addition to that very serious litigation error, the five surprise

ambush complaint issues were not raised during the "discovery

process" that occurred and ended weeks before the trial date. 

      Due process of law standards require that all

complaint issues against the defendant be clearly

noticed (identified) in the Plaintiff's Complaint (pleadings).


     If additional complaints arise prior to trial, the plaintiff

should file an Amended Complaint that identifies the

additional complaints.  Due Process of law standards

require that the

defendant be clearly "noticed" (informed) about all complaint

issues prior to trial and be given adequate time to prepare

any defenses that the defendant may have available to him.


       Example:  A defendant co-trustee may need to obtain an

expert witness (trust administration expert) to testify about

complex trust administration issues or complex trust taxation

issues - issues that the trial judge will not likely be

competent to evaluate properly without benefit of

expert testimony.


       Discovery is therefore allowed before trial so that each

side (plaintiff and defendant) can evaluate the complaints

and defenses that are available and decide whether or not

they should settle any dispute issues before trial.


     They may decide to avoid the additional expenses of going

to trial to resolve said disputes.  Most civil litigation

complaints are settled in that manner. Only a small

percentage of civil cases that are filed actually go

to trial for settlement action.  


      Consequently, all complaint issues identified in the

Plaintiff's Complaint should be evaluated by defense

counsel and the defendant during the Discovery Process


The plaintiff's side also can evaluate any defenses that the

defendant is planning to present at trial; these must be

identified in the Defendant's Answer (pleadings) that is

filed in the court in response to the Plaintiff's

Complaint pleadings


     The plaintiff may find that their case is very weak and is not

likely to win at trial.  In fact they may become subject to

expensive penalties if  their Complaint is actually frivolous.


     All of those important issues need to be evaluated as early

as possible in the litigation process and avoid unnecessary

litigation expenses.

     This sensible and fair-minded Discovery Process enables

the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) to determine whether or not to

settle the plaintiff's complaints/disputes or go forward to trial -

if an acceptable settlement agreement cannot be achieved.


    This is the way it is supposed to work, but that is not the

way the litigation was conducted in the 1989 case against co-

trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr.  The one-day trial was

conducted on September 8, 1989.


      The Final Judgment that was subsequently rendered in

October 1989 showed that Co-trustee Lon Willoughby won

the case on the two original complaint issues, but the

circuit court judge ruled against Lonnie Jr on three of the five

surprise complaint issues.


    Co-trustee Lonnie Jr. gave correct testimony about all of the

five complex surprise ambush complaint issues during the

trial, although those complex federal taxation issues and trust

administration issues had been completed (finalized) by

Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. prior to December 12, 1985. 


      He had not gone back and reviewed those trust estate

planning issues after the trust agreement documents had

been filed with the local circuit court records clerk on that date

(12/12/1985). 


     Fortunately, Co-trustee Lonnie Jr. was able to remember all

of the relevant information about the five surprise "ambush"

complaints, but he was not as conversant about those issues

as he would have been if he had been noticed about those

surprise complaint issues before trial.  In that event, he would

have gone back through those old records (if he could have

found them in storage), and he would have reviewed any

records relevant to those complex issues before trial. 


      Subsequent events showed that the circuit court judge

who conducted the trial on September 8, 1989 was actually

incompetent to evaluate Lonnie Willoughby's testimony during

the trial about complex trust estate taxation and trust estate

administration management issues. 


     As it turned out, the judge knew essentially nothing

about current trust estate taxation laws or relevant trust

administration legal standards and procedures. Consequently,

the judge was incompetent to adjudicate the improperly

introduced surprise"ambush" complaint issues.




     The fact that the plaintiff's attorney unfairly and unethically introduced five surprise complaints against Co-trustee Lon Willoughby is convincing evidence that the attorney already knew that he did not have a good case against Lon Willoughby.  Consequently, he had to come up with the unfair, unethical scheme to bring in surprise complaints to bolster his case against the Co-trustee from South Carolina.

      Although Lon's attorney was a very intelligent, very successful trial attorney with more than 22 years of experience, he pretended that he did not know how to object to surprise complaint issues to prevent a travesty of "due process of law" standards.  The attorney did object (four times) to the introduction of the surprise complaint issues, but his deceitful objections cleverly "failed" to show how Co-trustee  was being prejudiced by having to testify at trial about "surprise complaint" issues.

      Defendant Co-trustee Lon Willoughby was clearly being denied due process of law standards and was thereby being prejudiced in the case by not having adequate "notice" about said complaints.  It was very clear that Lon did not have adequate time to develop responsible defenses against the barrage of "surprise complaints" being introduced for the first time while the trial was in progress. He clearly needed to have a professional estate planning attorney and a professional trust administration expert testify on his behalf regarding the complex surprise complaints about those issues.

      The trial transcript proved conclusively that the trial judge instantly overruled all of the defense attorney's objections, and the judge insisted that  Lon Willoughby provide testimony about the surprise complaint issues

      Lon was appalled, dismayed, and disgusted with the extremely unfair and unethical manner in which the circuit court judge conducted the trial. Lon traveled back to South Carolina and subsequently commissioned two different estate planning attorneys (both were trust administration legal experts) to evaluate the 250 page transcript and the Plaintiff's Complaint to determine whether or not Lon Willoughby had been a competent and responsible co-trustee and had given competent testimony during the trial.  Their independent evaluations cost Lon several thousand dollars but Lon was confident that he had been a responsible and knowledgeable co-trustee and he wanted some proof of that from two trust administration experts.

      Their independent evaluations, by detailed sworn affidavit reports, about the plaintiff's Complaint and the 250 page trial transcript (testimony), showed that Lon had given responsible testimony during trial and that his testimony was correct regarding the complex estate planning taxation issues and other trust administration issues (surprise complaint issues).  Their independent reports also showed that the two trial attorneys and the trial judge did not have a competent understanding of the complex technical issues involved with the disputed trust administration issues. 

      Consequently, those two professional evaluations showed that the trial judge was incompetent to evaluate those complex technical trust administration issues without testimony from a professional trust administration expert.  Does that situation matter in a judicial system that is extremely corrupt in a self-serving manner?  No, in such a corrupt judicial system, it does not make any difference whatsoever if the trial judge is incompetent to render a judgment about such complex technical issues without benefit of professional expert testimony about the "surprise" complaint issues.  After all, the judge is going to make the Judgment say  whatever he wants it to say, irrespective of the evidential facts that may be presented during trial.

          The Judgment rendered in October 1989 shows that the Circuit Court Judge was determined to rule against Co-trustee Lon Willoughby on some issue, one way or another, and he did so in an extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded manner.  The Judgment rendered contained several false statements about Co-trustee Lon Willoughby, illustrating the extremely unfair, unethical, and outrageously corrupt manner in which the litigation process was conducted. 

      Lon timely appealed the Judgment; many months later, the appellate judges affirmed all of the disputed judicial actions that Lon raised in his appeal brief.  In other words, the appellate judges refused to correct any of the extremely unfair and unethical judicial actions taken against Co-trustee Lon Willoughby.

      Lon had spent several thousand dollars for legal representation in the trial court, and the appeal attorney also charged Lon several thousand dollars. Lon was beginning to learn that litigation can be an extremely expensive way to resolve disputes - even among family members.

      Over a period of many months, Lon conducted a lot of legal research about objections during trial - how to make proper objections that will preserve tial court error for appellate review.  His research found that all of the objections raised by his defense attorney were ineffective objections because they did not properly preserve trial court judicial error for an appeal.  Lon learned that a trial court judge has judicial discretion to overrule such objections (materality and relevance) and they will not be reversed by appellate review. 

      This knowledge enabled Lon to understand the clever manner in which his very intelligent, very experienced defense attorney had knowingly and deceitfully betrayed Co-trustee Lon Willoughby's litigation interests during trial.  This betrayal action, and several other glaring deficiencies in his defense attorney actions, showed that the defense attorney had collusively and conspiratorially betrayed Co-trustee Lon Willoughby during the trial.

      This enlightened understanding about objections during trial also explained why Lon was destined to lose in the appellate court also, even if his appeal attorney had presented the dispute issues on appeal in a competent manner (which he did not do).  Lon was also ambushed by his appeal attorney during the appeal process, and he was thereby forced to terminate the attorney before the appeal process had been completed.  Lon prepared and presented his own appeal documents for the remainder of the appeal process.  

      Lon discovered, during 14+ years of litigation pro se, that many judges and other attorneys apparently despise any America citizen that tries to accomplish any legal actions on his own, without professional attorney "assistance."  Lon's 14 years of pro se litigation experiences proved convincingly that the legal profession "brotherhood" (trial attorneys and judges) has established itself as the "elitist" level of society in America, and everyone else is essentially placed in the position of a tolerated indentured servant.  

      It appears that we "ordinary Americans" are not to be allowed to do anything for ourselves that could be considered something that an attorney could/should do for us.  If anyone tries to accomplish such "legal actions" on their own, and they get "caught" by a member of the "legal brotherhood" in some manner, then they are to be punished ruthlessly to make an example of them, and demonstrate that the legal profession has dominate control over "ordinary American" citizens.

       The litigation process reported herein illustrates how easy it is for a trial judge and opposing trial attorneys to unfairly and unethically corrupt a litigation process and make the case come out the way they (opposing attorneys and trial judge) decided the case before the trial was conducted.

      The trial was just a show for the record, to provide a basis for the trial attorneys to "earn" their expensive fees of $150 per hour (1989 fees), knowing that the appellate court judges (three) would do anything possible to affirm (approve) the actions of the trial judge, irrespective of fairness, due process of law, impartiality, or their duty to provide justice.

 Civil Lawsuit about Legal Malpractice, Deceit, and Fraud

       When Lon Willoughby subsequently sued his defense attorney for legal malpractice, deceit, and fraud, he found out just how unfair, unethical, and totally corrupt the judicial systems can be, whenever it suits their self-serving purposes.  Lon was ruthlessly denied a jury trial in said case, from 1993 to the present time, and the case is still going on in August 2005 because a series of unfair, unethical judges allowed the law firm involved to abusively coerce, intimidate, harass and persecute Lon Willoughby as much as possible, in any manner that they chose to use. 

      Two successive circuit court judges falsified judicial orders to deny Lon Willoughby any opportunity to present his complaints to a jury, although the complaint issues were clearly jury trial issues, pursuant to the controlling legal standards for these issues (common law jury trial standards regarding deceit, fraud, and legal malpractice).   The trial court judges denied Lon Willoughby a jury trial because it was clear to each judge, and clear to the defendant law firm and its chief attorney (defendant), that Lon Willoughby was capable of presenting his case to a jury and would very likely win his case.

     A series of trial judges then cooperated with a scheme concocted by the defendant attorney to prosecute non-resident Lon Willoughby for civil and criminal contempt charges.  The court brought contempt charges against Lon Willoughby four times and sentenced him to jail for a total of ten months of prison time.  Why?  Because he had responsibly reported, in detailed legal briefs, the extensive series of unfair, unethical, and criminal judicial actions taken against him by a series of State judges (from 1989 to 1994).  

      The contempt scheme ruthlessly denied non-resident Lon Willoughby any further opportunity to travel into the distant State to present his case or to defend himself from the barrage of retaliatory legal actions brought against him by the defendant attorney and his defendant law firm.  Consequently, the contempt scheme denied Lon any opportunity to present his complaints or defend himself from the legal actions taken against him by the defendant attorney, the defendant law firm, and the judges in the distant State. 

      So you tell me, how corrupt can the modern day judicial systems in America be?  Lon learned that they can be as unfair, unethical, and corrupt, in a self-serving manner, as very intelligent judges and other attorneys can make them.  

      All of those unfair, unethical, and outrageously corrupt judicial actions were accomplished to collusively and conspiratorially help  the corrupt defendant attorney, and his defendant law firm, avoid and evade civil prosecution by Lon Willoughby for extremely deceitful and fraudulent litigation representation in the 1989 case.   

      As shown herein briefly, the judicial system in the distant State ruthlessly abused, coerced, harassed, persecuted, prosecuted, and severely punished Lon Willoughby in retaliation for his successful "non-attorney" estate planning actions and his responsible efforts to prosecute an extremely corrupt attorney for legal malpractice, deceit, and fraud. 

      They apparently felt like Lon Willoughby had invaded "their legal territory" when he helped his parents develop an estate plan that successfully minimized probate expenses (while also reducing federal estate taxes to zero).  They also demonstrated that "local" trial judges will go to any length possible to prevent a "local" attorney and "local" law firm from being prosecuted for legal malpractice, deceit, and fraud by a severely abused non-resident litigant.

      In essence, a series of judges and the "local" attorneys ruthlessly tried to destroy Lon's reputation with his family and relatives, tried to destroy Lon's self-employed business operation in South Carolina, tried to destroy Lon emotionally and financially, and they also perpetrated a devious scheme to confiscate as much as possible of Lon's portion of the family estate - that had been provided for him in his father's "family trust estate." 

      Lon's trust funds were in a bank account in the distant State because of the trust situation in that State;  the "local" judge could therefore take jurisdictional control of said assets.  The judge denied Lon access to his inheritance until the litigation process was completed, so the judge could see how much money can be taken out of Lon's trust assets to pay attorney fees to the "local" attorneys who have enjoyed making life as frustrating, stressful, and expensive for Lon as possible since 1989 - more than fifteen years and still going! 

      Related litigation is  still going on in August 2005 and the "local" attorneys have unfairly and unethically "racked up attorney fees, fines, and interest" against non-resident litigant Lon Willoughby that will likely exceed $100,000.  They fully intend to take that money out of Lon's family trust estate assets, essentially depleting the trust estate assets of most of the remaining value allotted for Lonnie Willoughby, Jr.  This is an illustration of the extremely unfair, unethical, and ruthless criminal-minded manner in which the judiciary can easily operate, any time it chooses to do so

     On a "Confidence Scale" of 0 to 100, with 100 being a high level of confidence in judicial ethics, fairness, honesty, impartiality and integrity and 0 being absolutely no confidence whatsoever.  Lon rates the American judiciary at 0 (devoid of professional ethics, fairness, honesty, impartiality and integrity) whenever a civil case is being prosecuted pro se by a severely abused, coerced, harassed, and persecuted non-resident, non-attorney litigant regarding legal malpractice, deceit, and fraudThis situation is a true test of judicial integrity and due process of law principles.  Lon found that all trial court judges failed this test in every situation where the test was applicable. 

      Remember that Lon Willoughby has been through many motion hearings and other trial court actions and 14 appeal cases, with two appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Lon also had one unrelated civil case that he prosecuted pro se to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.  Consequently, Lon has been inside the "judiciary camp" on many occasions, at the state court and federal court levels, and he has a good understanding of how extremely self-serving, in an unfair and unethical manner, the judicial systems can operate with impunity.   

      Lon discovered that judges at all levels, in all courts, were totally devoid of a sense of fairness and integrity whenever unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions were being exposed in the courts (trial and appeal courts). Consequently, Lon has an abundance of personal knowledge about how totally self-serving and totally corrupt the judiciary can be when a severely abused pro se litigant is trying to expose and prosecute unfair, unethical trial attorney actions in American courts. 

      Lon now has good reason to believe that  the trial court judicial systems  in American are routinely allowed to operate in an extremely self-serving manner whenever they choose - because appellate courts and law enforcement agencies (state and federal) routinely refuse to initiate responsible investigative actions when legitimate, responsible reports are made to them about extremely unfair, unethical, and/or corrupt judicial actions.  Consequently, Lon believes that the judicial systems in America are so  totally self-serving and so inherently corrupt that they are essentially a form of organized crime.            

     In 15+ years of litigation actions in the distant state courts, Lon did not encounter a single trial court judge who would provide a fair and impartial judicial forum for the litigation process.  All of the judges showed obvious partiality to the "local" attorney defendant that Lon was prosecuting for deceit, fraud, and extreme legal malpractice (in the initial litigation that started this 15 year long ordeal - civil litigation between May and October 1989). 

      If Lon had paid trial attorneys to do what he has done while litigating pro se, his legal fees would have likely exceeded one million dollars  - if he could have found an attorney honest enough and courageous enough to expose the extreme judicial corruption that Lon personally exposed. However, Lon was not able to locate any trial attorney who would agree to expose any unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions by trial attorneys or trial judges.  That appalling and disgusting situation exposes the extremely self-serving nature of the judicial systems in America.  Lon was unable to find any attorney who would even consider  the merits of his legal malpractice complaints against his previous attorney.  As soon as they learned that Lon was looking for a trial attorney to help him present his legal malpractice case, they quickly said they would not get involved in such a case.  

     Over time, Lon learned that the judicial systems are so extremely self-serving that it is unrealistic to expect any trial attorney to honestly and aggressively present a very strong legal malpractice case against an extremely unethical and corrupt trial attorney.   The "legal brotherhood" apparently has an unwritten but well-understood "code of silence" about unfair, unethical actions within the legal brotherhood.  Consequently, it is practically impossible for a severely abused, coerced, harassed, intimidated, and persecuted litigant to get anything done about unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded judicial actions against a selected litigant. 

      That is the appalling, disgusting, and sickening state of affairs in the American judicial systems, as proven convincingly, beyond a reasonable doubt, by Lon Willoughby's ongoing fifteen years of experiences in state and federal courts, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court twice.  Therefore it is clear that the judicial systems in America can operate in an extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt self-serving manner and get away with it easily, any time they choose to do so.   

      Like most Americans, Lon could not afford to pay exorbitant attorney fees and costs in his efforts to expose the extremely unfair judicial actions that had been taken against him in 1989.  He also did not initially understand or anticipate that judges would be totally devoid of a responsible sense of fairness and impartiality (as their Judicial Code of Conduct requires).  Lon subsequently learned that the "local" defendant attorney and law firm could make the litigation process extremely difficult, expensive, and frustrating for Lon Willoughby, due to the extremely unfair and unethical "collusive cooperation" from the series of "local" judges that became involved.  

      Further complicating this situation, nonresident Lon was unable to locate a courageous trial attorney willing to get involved with defending and presenting his litigation issues; consequently, Lon had only two choices available to him.  He could stop litigating and automatically lose by default, or he could quickly try to learn enough about the litigation process and procedures to present his legal issues (claims and defenses)  pro se (without assistance of a trial attorney)

      Lon was so appalled, so dismayed, and so disgusted by the extremely unfair and unethical judicial actions that had been taken against him in the distant state's trial court that he chose to do whatever was necessary to learn how to present his own legal actions - proceeding pro se of necessity.  He was determined to report and expose the extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded  judicial actions that he was subjected to in the trial court and in the appellate court of the distant state.

     Over a period of many years of litigation and appeals, Lon learned that the judicial system is so extremely self-serving that trial attorneys understand that it would likely be career suicide if an attorney was courageous enough and honest enough to expose any unfair, unethical (corrupt) judicial actions.  They cannot afford to risk reporting even a small part of the appalling and disgusting judicial corruption that Lon reported and exposed with detailed legal briefs in the trial courts and in the appellate courts, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court for two separate but related cases. 

      In addition to his two cases to the U.S. Supreme Court exposing outrageously unfair and unethical  judicial corruption, Lon also litigated a totally separate case into the Supreme Court of South Carolina.  He exposed unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions by a circuit court judge.  Lon was appalled and disgusted with the extremely unfair and unethical manner in which that appeal was conducted by five justices of the state's highest appellate court - the Supreme Court of South Carolina.  

      Lon also initiated and litigated numerous other appeals in the distant state's appellate court. You can read a fifteen (15) page report that summarizes some of Lon's legal battles by visiting the Justice department of website:

      These extensive litigation experiences convinced Lon, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the judicial systems in America can easily be extremely self-serving and ruthlessly corrupt extortion rackets, any time a trial judge or an appellate judicial panel (typically three judges) choose to act in this manner.  The reason this appalling situation can easily occur is not difficult to understand, after you learn about  the following conditions: 

      1.   Members of the "legal brotherhood" effectively control all state and federal law enforcement agencies. 

       2.   Attorneys dominate and effectively control many state legislative bodies within the United States of America and have way too much control in the U.S. Congress.  Consequently, legislative bills can be manipulated to favor attorneys wherever this favoritism will provide some advantages for members of the legal profession (attorneys, judges, and staff personnel).  

      3.   Lon's extensive legal research found that the U.S. Supreme Court had "given" every judge in America (county, state, and federal judges) Absolute Immunity from any civil prosecution for damages by any litigant regarding any judicial action taken within the judge's subject-matter jurisdiction, even  if  the abusive judicial action was taken against a litigant in a willful vicious and malicious manner.  

      COMMENTS:  Lon's extensive legal research found that there was no legitimate constitutional basis for this dictatorial and tyrannical grant of extreme judicial authority and power.   Lon's extensive  litigation experiences and his legal research showed that judges essentially have been "enabled" to be abusive of the litigation process and any litigants they choose to coerce, harass, oppress, persecute, and prosecute  in an unfair, unethical,  and corrupt self-serving manner.  

      Trial court judges and appellate court judges  can therefore conduct litigation actions unfairly and unethically without any concern or fear of civil prosecution for monetary damages, no matter how malicious or ruthless their judicial actions may have been to a severely abused litigant, because the U.S. Supreme Court granted all judges in America Absolute Immunity from such civil prosecutions, irrespective of   how extensive the emotional and monetary damages  may have been to a severely abused litigant.   

         4.  Lon's extensive legal research about the judicial immunity issue discovered that all state prosecutors and/or solicitors and all federal prosecutors also have Absolute Immunity from any civil prosecution for any alleged unfair, unethical abusive actions they may take against any defendant, in a similar manner to the Absolute Immunity that was "given" to all  judges.  Consequently, prosecutors and solicitors  have also been "enabled" to be as abusive, unfair, unethical, and ruthless as they choose to be within a litigation process - without concern or fear of civil prosecution by the abused litigant for extreme emotional damages or monetary damages, even when such prosecutorial actions effectively ruined or severely damaged a person's business or other means of making a living and providing for one's family.

        5.   Fifteen years of litigation convinced Lon that the Judicial Rules of Procedure do not require trial court judges to provide an honest legal basis and factual basis for adverse rulings against a defendant.  In other words, a trial court judge can rule against you without having to provide a competent and responsible explanation of the legal basis for said ruling.  In addition, Lon learned that trial court  judges understand that they can get away with providing an unfair, unethical, and fraudulent factual and legal basis for their judicial decisions because it is unlikely that an appellate court will reverse such fraudulent judgments. 

      Lon found that this appalling and disgusting unfair situation will likely occur even when there is an abundance of evidence in the Record On Appeal (trial court records sent to appellate court for appellate review) to show that the disputed judicial statements are unfair, unethical, and fraudulent.  Lon found that appellate judges will routinely use the Appellate Rules of Procedure in any way possible to prevent a severely abused litigant from winning any appeal that exposes unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions in the trial court.     

      This very "convenient cover-up situation" enables trial court judges to rule against any civil litigant in an extremely unfair and unethical manner, any time the judge chooses to do so. The judge can literally say anything he/she wants to say about you, regardless of how unfair and unethical it may be, because the judge does not have to provide honest reasons for their judgment in a case.  Lon learned that judges can make extremely false statements (not supported by evidence in the record) in judgments and get away with it because the appellate judges will likely affirm such judgments using their Per Curiam, Affirmed decision, with no legal opinion being given for their decision. This type of PCA appeal decision is routinely given because it is easy and quick - just one very short sentence is all that is said (and done?) to report the results of the appeal process, no matter how complex or important the dispute issues on appeal may have been (reported in the appellant's appeal brief). 

      The Per Curiam, Affirmed decision means that the appellate judicial panel (usually three judges) agreed to render this decision.  When a PCA decision is rendered, with no legal written opinion given, it automatically prevents the appellant from having a fair opportunity to appeal to any higher level appellate court (State Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court).  Why is this true? 

     If the appellate court judges chose to not explain their mutually agreed reason(s) for their adverse ruling against the appellate, the higher level court has no legal or factual basis to review and reverse.  In other words, the appellate panel of judges will not tell the appellant why they ruled against him/her on appeal, and that extremely unfair self-serving legal tactic will automatically prevent the appellant from having any reasonable chance of getting a higher level court to reverse their PCA appeal decision. 

      As you can easily see, this is an extremely sneaky, sleazy, unfair and unethical judicial tactic that can be used to manipulate an appeal process for benefit of members of the "legal brotherhood" and their staff personnel.  Unfair, unethical, and corrupt trial court judicial actions can easily be affirmed on appeal using this quick and easy judicial tactic. 

     It is important to understand that this judicial tactic was conveniently "devised by top level jurist" (judges and other attorneys) for their own self-serving benefit.  How is that for judicial fairness and impartiality in the trial courts and in the appellate courts of America?  Lon believes that such sneaky, conniving, self-serving judicial tactics are a heinous criminal-minded fraud upon the public trust.  Most Americans will never learn about this situation unless they review this very important report.

      As you can see from the scenario related above, "top level jurist" (judges and other attorneys) have written the Judicial Rules of Procedure and the Appellate Rules of Procedure to conveniently enable themselves to have great latitude to conduct unfair and unethical litigation actions in the trial courts and in the appellate courts, whenever they choose to do so, for whatever reasons they may choose to use.  In other words, they can easily corrupt a litigation process whenever they want to do so, for whatever reason they want to use for their self-serving benefit, and they know that there is almost no chance that they will be investigated or prosecuted for such unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded judicial actions. 

      Will your trial attorney play along with a corrupt judge?  Lon found that the trial attorneys went along with unfair, unethical judicial actions in every situation, without exception.  So how corrupt is our American judicial system?  Lon found that it is as corrupt as the judge and "cooperative" trial attorneys choose to make it, any time they choose to do so. 

    During twelve years (12) of litigation about attorney legal malpractice, deceit and fraud, Lon was repeatedly denied a fair and impartial judicial forum.  That was done in a systematic manner for each litigation action that Lon was involved with (many motion hearings, multiple summary judgment hearings, etc.). 

     A series of trial court judges consistently acted with obvious bias and very noticeable favoritism toward the "local" attorney and his law firm and demonstrated an adversarial attitude toward nonresident litigant Lon Willoughby.  It was clear that Lon had a right to a jury trial, but successive circuit court judges took judicial actions that unfairly and unethically denied Lon Willoughby any opportunity to get his case in front of a jury.  The case should have gone to a jury trial in 1993, but Lon was denied a jury trial repeatedly and it is now clear that Lon will never get to present his legal complaint issues to a jury.   

      Lon was repeatedly denied due process of law standards and denied a jury trial because it was clear to a series of trial judges that Lon would likely win his case against the defendant attorney, and defendant law firm, if Lon was allowed to present his case to a jury.  Lon was repeatedly denied a jury trial throughout twelve (12) years of related litigation actions.  A series of successor judges took several unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded actions to prevent Lon Willoughby from being able to prosecute a defendant attorney and law firm for legal malpractice in a jury trial.   Let's consider the question again:  How corrupt is our American Judicial System?  See item 6 below for additional information about this subject.  

       6.   Lon also learned that the situation reported above makes it very easy for trial judges to get away with making extremely unfair and unethical false statements about a litigant in the Judgment rendered.  If the severely abused litigant is willing and able to pay about five to ten thousand dollars for an appeal of such an unfair, unethical Judgment, the abused litigant will likely learn that those false prejudicial statements will automatically prejudice the appellate judges against the abused litigant (appellant).  Consequently, the appellant has no reasonable chance of getting an extremely unfair, unethical trial court judgment reversed on appeal. 

      Five successive circuit court judges made extremely unfair and unethical false statements about Lon in various judgments during fifteen years of related litigation actions.  Lon learned that those false statements severely prejudiced the cases against him (on appeal) in an extremely unfair and unethical manner.  In each situation, the trial judges made such statements for direct and proximate benefit to a defendant attorney, and his law firm,  that Lon had exposed as an outrageously corrupt and unethical trial attorney and law firm. 

      Lon eventually learned that appellate judges will generally not reverse unfair, unethical trial court judgments. They can easily choose to play bureaucratic judicial games with the trial court's and the appellate court's Rules of Procedure and use the rules in a perverse self-serving manner that will obstruct and subvert the cause of justice.  Generally, they will not  - simply acknowledge the obvious truth - that the trial court litigation was conducted in an extremely unfair, unethical manner and the judicial decision(s) rendered therein should be reversed in the interest of FAIRNESS, TRUTH, and JUSTICE

      They like to use the convenient self-serving excuse that it is not their job to retry the case.  In this respect, the appellate court judges routinely defer to the trial judge's judicial opinions because he actually "saw the litigants in the court room" and therefore had a better chance to evaluate their "attitude and demeanor" during the trial.  It is therefore standard practice for appellate judges to accept the trial judge's expressed opinion (in a Judgment Final Order), even when there is no evidence whatsoever in the Record on Appeal to provide a reasonable basis for the judge's adverse opinion about a litigant. 

      Consequently, trial judges know that they can issue Orders and Final Judgments that contain extremely unfair and unethical false statements that will adversely prejudice the appellate court judges against the appellant - if the naive litigant chooses to go to the substantial expense of an appeal (thousands of dollars). 

     Lon's extensive appeal experiences found that appellate court judges will routinely refuse to reverse such fraudulent Orders or Final Judgments, even when the Record on Appeal contains substantial evidential documents to prove convincingly that the disputed statement(s) (in the appealed trial court Order or Final Judgment) was unfair, unethical, and fraudulent.

      Due to his multiple appeals, Lon learned that appellate judges will usually act to protect an unfair, unethical, and/or corrupt trial court judge, even when there is an abundance of evidence in the Record on Appeal to prove convincingly that the trial judge conducted the litigation process in an extremely unfair and unethical manner.  Lon found that the appellate judges would simply ignore said evidence and issue an unfair, unethical and fraudulent Appeal Decision - usually a Per Curiam, Affirmed decision without a written legal opinion.

    7.   Lon learned that appellate judges have given themselves an Ace of Spades type appeal decision called the Per Curiam, Affirmed decision without legal opinion.  This decision signifies that all judges on the judicial panel (typically three judges)  agreed to uphold the trial judge's judicial decision [regarding the issue(s) that the appellant was disputing by appeal]. 

      Lon learned that when the appellate panel judges choose to not render a legal opinion with their Per Curiam, Affirmed decision (PCA), the PCA appeal decision will automatically deny the appellant any reasonable opportunity of getting that appeal decision reviewed and reversed by a higher appellate court (State Supreme Court, or the U.S. Supreme Court). 

      Lon received several Per Curiam, Affirmed appeal decisions with no legal opinion being given (no explanation of the legal and factual basis for said decisions).  He subsequently learned that a higher level court will automatically deny any appeal from a Per Curiam, Affirmed decision with no legal opinion, no matter how unfair, unethical, or fraudulent such an appeal decision may have been, as shown by evidentiary documents contained in the trial court records that were used for said appellate review (Record On Appeal).   

      After several appeals, appellant Lon Willoughby understood that he could not depend upon the appellate court to provide relief for extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions in the trial courts.  He also learned that he could not get any law enforcement agency (state or federal) to make a responsible evaluation of his legitimate, well documented complaints.  Consequently, Lon eventually understood why trial judges can be extremely unfair, unethical, and fraudulent in their Judgments - there is no practical, cost efficient way to reverse such outrageously unfair and unethical judicial actions.  Judges know this of course, and they can be as unfair, unethical, and corrupt as they choose to be, with very little danger that any punitive action will be taken against them for grossly abusing their judicial oath of office and their judicial authority, discretion, and judicial power. 

       As shown above, an appeal decision to uphold the trial judge's Judgment can be rendered by the appellate panel of judges, without them having to respond in a fair and responsible manner to any of the dispute issues raised on appeal by the appellant (person who initiates the appeal of a trial court Judgment).   They can simple ignore (unfairly and unethically sweep away) all legitimate dispute issues by simply choosing to render a Per Curiam, Affirmed decision that provides no legal opinion to explain why they ruled against all of the appellant's appeal brief issues (issues that reported and exposed the unfair and/or unethical litigation errors that occurred below - in the trial court). 

      Lon should have won all of his appeals, but he only won two of his many appeals over a period of fifteen years of appeal actions.   If the appellate court had been fair and impartial, Lon would have won his first appeal and the rest of the 15 years of related litigation actions would not have been necessary.  He also learned that no punitive action will be taken against a dishonest trial court judge, even when it is shown on appeal that the judge acted in an extremely unfair, unethical, fraudulent, and corrupt manner (falsified official orders in an outrageously unfair and deceitful manner to make the case come out the way the judge wanted - usually for direct and proximate benefits to the "local" attorney favored by the trial judge). 

      As you can see from the situations reported above, trial judges have been "enabled" by the judicial Rules of Procedure (or lack thereof) to make unfair, unethical, and fraudulent trial court decisions, any time they choose to do so.  Lon's many appeals proved conclusively that it is unlikely that a severely abused litigant will be able to get an extremely unfair, unethical and/or  fraudulent adverse Judgment reversed by an appellate court.  

      With a great amount of frustration and disappointment in the appalling and disgusting lack of professional judicial ethics, Lon reluctantly concluded that the appellate court process is usually just another very expensive phase of the "judicial extortion" process (racket?).  After fifteen years of related trial court actions and appeals, Lon concluded that the judicial process is generally about as unfair and unethical and corrupt as the trial judge and the trial attorneys decide to make it (for whatever reasons they mutually agree upon - usually whatever the judge "indicates" that he wants as the outcome for the case). 

      In essence, Lon's 15 years of litigation experiences taught him that the litigation process can easily be a heinous fraud upon (1) the  public trust and (2) the trust of the naive litigants who unfortunately get caught up in this extremely self-serving "judicial extortion racket."  Lon's extensive litigation experiences convinced him that the primary object of the judicial process is to extract as much money from all litigants as can be done in a feasible manner - for direct and proximate benefits to the "legal brotherhood."  Arriving at a fair and just judicial decision was never accomplished for any of Lon's dispute issues in numerous trial court actions over a period of 15 years.   He found that appellate court judges were almost as devoid of judicial ethics as the numerous trial court judges that he encountered in the State courts and the federal courts..

      Lon found that the seven key issues identified above effectively enabled the "legal profession brotherhood" to quietly gain extensive control in all States of the United States of America, and essentially gained control of every county in each State.  It is very important to understand that judges and other attorneys essentially captured the entire United States, without having to fire a single shot in battle.  

      This extensive judicial power and control provides tremendous benefits to members of the "legal brotherhood" in many ways, financially, politically, and socially.  This very powerful control, procured gradually during the past 200+ years by  judges and other attorneys, effectively enables members of the "legal brotherhood" to enjoy an elitist status in American Society that provides very special privileges, including being able to avoid most investigations and prosecutions for unfair, unethical, and criminal activities in the courtrooms of America (or elsewhere).   

          The dominate control that attorneys have over law enforcement agencies, for both investigative and prosecutorial actions, makes it essentially impossible for a severely abused litigant to get a responsible investigation conducted of alleged unfair, unethical, and corrupt litigation actions by a judge, trial attorney, or an abusive criminal conspiracy by the judge and trial attorneys.  

      Title 18 of the United States Criminal Code (annotated), 18 USCA 241, provides the federal criminal code (law) relevant to a criminal conspiracy to deny protected rights of residents of the United States of America.  Lon's extensive litigation experiences found that judges and trial attorneys frequently violated this criminal statute but no law enforcement agency would investigate Lon's valid, well documented complaints about those unfair, unethical, and criminal conspiratorial judicial actions.   

      The outrageous deficiencies in law enforcement actions reported herein, combined with the Absolute Immunity "grants" identified above, enable trial judges and trial attorneys to conduct litigation's (civil and criminal) in an extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt manner any time they collusively "agree" to conduct a fraudulent litigation process.   Lon has been subjected to several outrageously unfair, unethical, and fraudulent litigation actions, in the trial courts and in the appellate courts of the distant state. 

     Over a period of fifteen years, Lon repeatedly reported and exposed, in detailed legal briefs, numerous outrageously unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions  that Lon was subjected to in an abusive, harassing, and ruthless manner.  In general, Lon's legitimate complaints about unethical criminal judicial actions were ignored by all of the judges involved (trial court judges and appellate court judges).  However, Lon did win two of his many appeals so the appellate court did render two fair-minded appeal decisions.  It is important to understand that in those two appeals, the appellate court still took no responsible action to initiate an appropriate law enforcement agency investigation of the criminal-minded judicial actions that had been reported in Lon's appeal briefs for each of those appeals. 

      Lon also reported some of the criminal judicial actions and conspiratorial litigation schemes to appropriate state and federal law enforcement agencies.  His responsible complaints were also ignored by all of the law enforcement agencies (state and federal), without any responsible efforts to understand the seriousness of his complaints.  No investigative actions were initiated regarding any of Lon's complaints - apparently because judges and attorneys were the alleged perpetrators of said criminal actions (members of the "legal brotherhood"). 

      Law enforcement agencies summarily refused to evaluate the evidential reports and evidentiary documents that Lon tried to present to them.   He found that the "elitist status of judges and other attorneys" provided them with automatic immunity and protection from complaints about unfair, unethical, and/or criminal litigation actions.  This extremely unfair situation  made it impossible for Lon to get any law enforcement agency to initiate a responsible investigation of his legitimate complaints. 

      Lon's detailed reports were also ignored by trial judges and appellate judges, even though his reports were made in a diligent and responsible manner.  Trial court  judges and appellate court judges repeatedly ignored Lon's detailed legal briefs that reported and exposed a heinous criminal conspiracy, by a defendant (trial attorney) and a successive series of seven trial court judges to perpetrate extremely unfair, unethical, and/or criminal-minded litigation actions against Lon Willoughby, as he proceeded  pro se of necessity (over a period of 14+ years).  Those judicial actions were clearly conducted for direct and proximate financial, social, and career benefits to the extremely unfair and unethical defendant attorney, and his defendant law firm.

      As Lon's Justice report shows (www.ABCofHealth.com), it is very easy for the judicial systems in America to operate like a good ol' boys club, conducting litigation actions in an extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt manner any time "they" please, for their own financial, political, and social benefits, to the financial detriment of trusting litigants who naively get involved in this extremely expensive, frustrating, and very time consuming (time wasting?) "judicial" system.

     The extensive unfair, unethical litigation actions that Lon was ruthlessly subjected to over a period of fifteen years enabled him to see first-hand, on numerous occasions, that the judicial systems in America are routinely self-serving government bureaucracies that have given themselves so much control that they can operate in an extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded manner any time they choose to do so - with impunity. 

      Lon's litigation experiences proved conclusively, beyond any reasonable doubt, that judicial systems can operate in such an unfair, unethical, and corrupt self-serving manner that they can qualify as a form of organized crime.  Based upon those revealing litigation experiences, Lon is convinced that the judicial systems in America can be as corrupt, in a self-serving manner, as exceptionally intelligent, well educated judges and other attorneys can scheme to make them operate for their own benefit, or benefit to the "legal brotherhood" in general. 

      Does this report imply that all courts always operate in an unfair, unethical, self-serving manner?  No, this report does not imply that.  Sometimes, judges do not take a personal interest in the outcome of a case, and they therefore have no personal desire to manipulate the case and make it come out a certain way.  They may in fact conduct some litigation actions in a reasonably fair and impartial manner.  Lon has never seen this done because his litigation actions were always exposing judicial corruption.

 This report shows that judges and prosecutors have far too much latitude to corrupt the litigation process at will, and this report shows that they can easily do so and get away with it with impunity  any time they choose to do so. 

      This report also shows how difficult it can be to win an appeal that reports unfair, unethical, and/or criminal-minded judicial actions.  A litigant should expect the appellate court to always try to find a way to "affirm" the trial judge's disputed unfair and unethical judicial actions.  If there is no way to stretch the facts and/or the law to justify "affirming" the trial judge's disputed actions, the appellate judges can always play their Ace of Spades and issue a Per Curiam, Affirmed appeal decision that presents no opinion for their action. 

      Remember that a PCA type appeal decision that has no written legal opinion automatically prevents the appellant from having any reasonable opportunity to win an appeal in a higher level appellate court (State Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court).

     In essence, a PCA appeal decision with no written legal opinion is the end of the appeal process.  It slams the door of justice shut, with no additional opportunity to correct an extremely unfair, unethical, and/or criminal-minded trial court adjudication.  One may have an opportunity to appeal such a decision, but that appeal will always be a total waste of time, work, and expense because the "appellate court" will simply deny the appeal - they won't even review an appeal of a PCA decision with no written opinion.

     As shown herein, Lon has acquired an abundance of experience and documentary evidence that proves convincingly, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any judiciary can easily operate for the self-serving financial, political, and social benefit of the "legal brotherhood" rather than dispensing justice fairly and impartially to trusting and naive litigants.

      Lon is therefore determined to help American patriots learn about the judicial situations reported herein and help them learn how we can improve the terribly corrupt self-serving judicial systems in America.  Our Americals4Justice club membership will help patriotic-minded American citizens work toward accomplishing the following vital educational actions:

      1.  Learn about the outrageously abusive, unfair, unethical, self-serving judicial actions that were taken against him systematically over a period of 15+ years, in a ruthless criminal-minded manner, through the state courts and through the federal courts, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court twice.  Lon will use the exceptionally well-documented history of those outrageously unfair and unethical judicial actions, and the pattern of judicial corruption that those judicial records expose, to show the exceptionally urgent need  for American voters to take appropriate actions to

     2.  Learn about the vital changes that need to be made in our judicial systems, at the state level and the federal level, to help ensure that the judicial systems in America will be improved greatly as soon as possible (ASAP).  Lon believes that thousands of innocent people are probably in jails and prisons because of the extremely unfair and unethical litigation tactics that are allowed in the courts. 

     Lon's personal experiences convinced him that unfair, unethical litigation schemes and tactics are common occurrences. He understands that the combination of our present "self-regulating judicial systems" and the "absolute immunity" status of judges and prosecutors/solicitors enables trial judges and trial attorneys/lawyers to collusively conduct unfair and unethical litigation actions at will (any time they choose). 

      3.   Learn about the most effective way to get the changes needed actually implemented on a State by State basis, and also learn how to get the improvements needed in the federal courts system.  

      Is it possible for Patriots across America to join together with sufficient coordinated efforts to succeed in a noble crusade to improve the judicial systems in America?  Lon believes that it will be possible to accomplish the needed changes when millions of patriotic-minded Americans have been educated about the extremely unfair and unethical self-serving manner in which judges and other attorneys have deceptively betrayed the sacred public trust of  Americans. 

      We will educate our members about the outrageously unfair and unethical self-serving judicial schemes and tactics that are easily used in the courtrooms of America.  Our members will have access to effective action plans and well designed programs that can help bring about substantial improvements in the judicial systems in America.  

      In essence, patriotic-minded Americans need to be educated about the "judicial problem and the prosecutorial problem" and the best way to correct these problems, the Constitution Solution.  Our members will learn why we need to begin working together in a national team effort to change the Constitutions of each State appropriately to provide authorization for special  grand juries that will have authority to review judicial complaints, conduct evaluations, and prosecute unfair/unethical judges and/or unfair/unethical prosecutors or solicitors.  

     This is the most effective way, and the most practical way, to ensure that the judicial systems will have sufficient "motivation" to provide fair and impartial judicial forums and focus attention on dispensing much more justice than they currently accomplish using the extremely self-serving judicial system procedures that are "allowed" today (do they frequently qualify as a trial attorney extortion racket?). 

      Lon's extensive litigation experiences enabled him to see the glaring deficiencies of the modern day judicial systems.  His association with JAIL4Judges.org helped him understand the most effective way to accomplish the changes that need to be made at the state and federal levels to enable a much better judicial system than the system that has evolved over the past 200+ years in an extremely self-serving manner for direct and proximate benefits to members of the elitist "legal brotherhood."  

      Lon's understanding of the best solutions available to improve the judicial system came from his association with other outstanding patriotic groups that are working on very important projects related to these vital judicial issues.  You can visit the web site for these organizations with the links  below. 

jail4judges.org

 FIJA.org

AmericanJuryInstitute.org

 

     Our Americans4Justice actions and programs can provide substantial help and support to these outstanding patriotic organizations. Please note that the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is directly affiliated with the American Jury Institute.

Coordination of Cooperation with Patriotic Organizations

     Working together with numerous patriotic organizations is a key part of our strategy to greatly improve the effectiveness of the patriotic movement in the United States.  A membership in our patriotic organization can provide tremendous advantages and benefits to each of their members. This situation will greatly improve their ability to be healthy  and  effective patriots for more years (due to extended life spans from our health enhancement education programs).  Within a few years, we could help millions of American patriots substantially improve their health and their effectiveness as patriots.  This is the ambitious and bold objective that Lon sees clearly for Americans4Justice

      Lon understands that the sinister enemies of freedom and justice in America are gaining strength and gaining more self-serving control over all Americans as each day goes by.  Why is this possible?  Because the great majority of voters in American do not understand how badly the "legal brotherhood" has stacked the judicial systems in their own favor, to the great detriment of trusting litigants.  It is therefore very important for patriots across American to learn about our educational programs as quickly as possible. 

     In order to accomplish our various educational objectives effectively, we will  utilize the infrastructure of several other well-established companies in our educational programs.  One of those companies is Legal Shield (formerly Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.,) and the company home office is still located in Ada, Oklahoma.

      Lon Willoughby has been associated with Pre-Paid Legal, Inc. as an independent sales representative since December 1984 so he is very familiar with the company and the vital legal services membership plans that they developed over the years.  That company has been acquired by another company that changed the name to Legal Shield.

     Legal Shield Services, Inc. has excellent legal services membership plans for various situations (family membership, business membership, combined family and business membership, commercial drivers, law enforcement officers, school teachers, etc.); all of their memberships are outstanding values.  You can visit their web site using the hyperlink below. Check it out and see which membership would be most appropriate for your situation.  Please anticipate that some of the specialized memberships are not available in all States. 

 http://www.LegalShield.com/info/abcofhealth

    Several other very good companies will provide additional products and/or services for our members, on an as needed basis (members choose products and/or services they want).  Additional information about some of these companies is provided in the Programs section of this website.



Lon found that it was all a big waste of diligent responsible effort, many thousands of hours of his time, about 9,000 miles of travel by auto (back and forth to the distant state courts), and many thousand dollars of his money ($150,000+), and more than $300,000 in lost income due to the 20+ years of Lon's responsible pro se litigation work.

     He gradually learned that the judicial systems in that state (trial courts and appellate courts) were so disgustingly corrupt in a "self-serving manner" that an individual could not do anything responsible about unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions in the state's trial courts or appellate courts. 

     The judicial system operated as a "good ole boy" club that would do anything possible to prevent Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. from being able to successfully prosecute his valid litigation complaints pro se against his former defense attorney (in 1989) for deceit, fraud, and legal malpractice. 

     Lon's diligent responsible litigant actions also proved that similar unfair, unethical, and corrupt self-serving conditions also prevailed in the federal court systems - in the trial court and in the appellate court.
     Lon Willoughby, Jr. learned that if you want to find out how corrupt a judicial system can be, simple sue a prominent defense attorney for deceit, fraud, and legal malpractice.  The judicial system will be corrupted in any way possible to prevent a successful prosecution of those complaints before a jury. 
     Lon had a protected right to a jury trial, but a series of judicial actions by two circuit court judges denied him any opportunity to present his complaint issue in a jury trial.
     The judicial system was further corrupted when a series of judges then then corruptly took actions to make it impossible for Willoughby to continue litigating his own legal actions pro se.  A circuit court judge improperly and corruptly issued an injunctive order that required Willoughby to hire a registered attorney to represent him in any further circuit court litigation.
     That circuit court judge then transferred the litigation process back to the county court, where the case originally began. At that point in time, Willoughby had an appeal case active in the state's appellate court.  Willoughby subsequently won that appeal - his appeal proved that a previous circuit judge had improperly (corruptly) issued a Summary Judgment that dismissed Willoughby's counterclaims against his former defense attorney (Willoughby's claims of deceit, fraud, and legal malpractice).
     When the case was transferred down to the county court, Willoughby's former defense attorney got the local county court judge to prosecute Willoughby for allegedly violating the circuit court's injunctive order that required Willoughby to hire a registered attorney (in that state) to file any future litigation pleadings in the circuit court litigation. 
     The county court judge improperly and corruptly then prosecuted Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. for alleged violations of the circuit court's injunctive order.  Willoughby had not violated the circuit court's injunctive order in any way, but the county court judge unfairly, unethically, and corruptly proceeded to go forward with a series of three cases for "contempt of court" against Lon Willoughby, still living in South Carolina. 
     The first two contempt cases were for "civil contempt" but the third case was alleged to be "criminal contempt of court." 
     Lon Willoughby did not travel to the distant state and attempt to defend himself in an obviously corrupt county court trial about the first improper "civil contempt of court" complaint.  The extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt county court judge convicted Willoughby of "civil contempt of court" and sentenced him to serve several weeks of time in the local county jail.
     When the second "civil contempt of court" case was subsequently scheduled for trial, Willoughby again refused to foolishly travel to the distant state and attempt to participate in that trial. 
     Willoughby realized that he would have likely been arrested as soon as he appeared in the courthouse for said trial, and he would have been taken immediately to the local county jail for incarceration for several weeks as a result of the first contempt conviction.  He realized that he would also be convicted in the second contempt of court case, no matter what actions he might have taken pro se to attempt to defend himself. 
     By that time, Willoughby had realized that one of the main objectives in both "civil contempt of court" cases was to force him into a position where he would have to spend thousands of dollars to hire a local attorney to represent him in each of those "civil contempt of court" cases. 
     Could an honest attorney have defended him adequately to prevent each of those "civil contempt of court" convictions?  Yes, that was possible, but it was also most unlikely to have occurred. 


     That judge had two warrants issued for Lonnie Willoughby's arrest (if he could ever be found within the state) and also filed those two warrants with every sheriff's office in the distant state.  That county court judge proceeded to prosecute non-resident Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. for three separate successive cases of "contempt of court."
     Lon Willoughby did not foolishly travel to the distant court, where he knew he would be arrested and put in jail (no matter what defensive actions he might present during each of those successive trials. 
     After the three trials, the cumulative total of jail time for those three cases amounted to nine months of jail time in the local county court jail.  Lon then appealed the third "contempt" conviction (for criminal contempt of court) that had been prosecuted by the local state attorney's office. 
     The circuit court judge, who acted as the single appellate court judge,  ruled in Willoughby's favor because his appeal legal brief (filed pro se by U.S. Mail with the judge) showed that the county court judge did not have subject-matter jurisdiction of the "criminal contempt of court" case and his conviction of Lonnie Willoughby was therefore null and void. 
     Willoughby's winning that appeal case (against the local state prosecutor's office) did not nullify the two previous "contempt of court" convictions, even though that county court judge did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to prosecute Willoughby for either one of those contempt of court cases.
      However, Lon did not appeal those two convictions so those two improper convictions still stand as valid convictions, and there was nothing that Willoughby could then do to overturn those two convictions.
The 30 day time period for an appeal of each of those two successive convictions had expired without a timely appeal being filed by Willoughby.
     The two warrants for Willoughby's arrest were still active with all sheriffs in the distant state (in 1986). Those two warrants are still active with all sheriffs in the distant state at this time in 2020, 34 years later.
     The situations reported briefly above illustrate why it can be very awkward and dangerous for an American citizen to travel into any county or state that is a substantial distance from his home county.  A litigation action at a distant location can be difficult to cope with.  
Litigation education for A4J club members  
     Our A4J club members will be educated about the importance of avoiding becoming a litigant in any American judicial systems.  Lon learned that American judicial systems can be extremely self-serving and easily function as malicious and ruthless extortion rackets (especially in distant courts - outside of one's home area). 
     Attorneys/lawyers and judges in distant locations know that the non-local litigant is at a very serious disadvantage, and they can easily manipulate the litigation process to make it very awkward, very difficult, very expensive, and very time consuming for a non-local litigant.
     In Lon's situation, they made related litigation actions continue in the distant state for 20+ years in a malicious and ruthless manner while they tried to destroy him financially, destroy his self-employed business in Greenville, SC, and they tried to destroy his marriage and family life with his two sons and other family members and friends. 
     The attorneys/lawyers were as unfair, unethical, conniving, sneaky, corrupt, despotic, and tyrannical as they could be - and they got away with all of it without any responsible investigation or punishment at all in spite of Lon's diligent efforts to report and expose those criminal actions.
     A4J club members will learn why they should carefully avoid getting involved with any judicial situations that can be avoided, like they would responsibly try to avoid getting AIDS or other very serious disease conditions. 
     Why?  Because judges in America have way too much "judicial discretion" - they can easily act like corrupt despots and tyrants and thereby wreck a person's  life in an extremely unfair and unethical criminal-minded manner that can be malicious and ruthless.  Attorneys and judges did that with Lonnie Willoughby for 20+ years.  
     Judges know that there is essentially nothing that you can do about such judicial actions in a practical, cost-effective manner because state law enforcement agencies and federal law enforcement agencies are controlled by attorneys/lawyers.  Those attorneys are also members of  the "legal brotherhood."
     It is extremely unlikely that you will ever get any of the elitist members of the "legal brotherhood" to investigate responsibly your complaints about unfair, unethical judicial actions by another elitist member of the "legal brotherhood" (a trial court attorney, lawyer, a trial court judge, or a three-judge panel of appellate court judges).  The entire system can be as corrupt in a self-serving manner as they want it to be, and there is nothing that a severely abused litigant can do about it.
     Lonnie Willoughby found that this unfair situation prevailed, again and again, even when there was clear and convincing documentary evidence that he had been abused during a litigation process in an outrageously unfair and corrupt manner - even when it was clear that the judicial abuse was conducted in a malicious and ruthless manner.
     Lon's very responsible well-documented complaints were simply ignored by appellate court judges in almost all appeal cases (except two appeals) and his reports about judicial corruption to appropriate law enforcement agents were also effectively ignored in every situation.
     Lon Willoughby can therefore personally ensure that our A4J club members will have access to exceptionally important education about how the judicial systems in America really work behind their deceptive false public image. 
     A4J club members can learn how easy it is for trial court attorneys (or trial court lawyers) and also trial court judges to willfully betray the American litigants during a litigation process.  They can all do that in an extremely unfair and unethical manner that is self-serving to them and/or self-serving (beneficial to) for members of the elitist "legal brotherhood.
     Members of our Americans4Justice private education membership club will learn how easy it is for attorneys/lawyers, and judges to repeatedly betray the sacred public trust placed in the "self-regulating" judicial systems.  A4J club members will also learn that appellate court judges can be just as unfair, unethical, and corrupt as trial court judges.
     Yes, America's courts can deceitfully act unfairly and unethically and corruptly, and they can do so to an extreme degree, and repeatedly get away with those actions.  Why?  Because the respective law enforcement systems are actually controlled by members of the legal brotherhood and they let judges get away with those kinds of criminal-minded actions. 
     Lon Willoughby knows about those disgusting judicial conditions from a lot of personal experiences with multiple trial court litigation actions over a period of 20+ years of involvement in related litigation actions. 
     Those progressive related litigation actions involved multiple state trial court judges (5 circuit court judges and two county court judges) and also involved two federal court judges.  They also involved numerous appellate court litigation actions that involved numerous appellate court judges. 
     In general, with only two exceptions, all of the appellate court judges acted unfairly, unethically, and corruptly with seven trial court judges and with ten appellate court cases (state and federal appeal cases that Lon personally conducted pro se - represented himself without an attorney). 

     You now understand why our Terms and Conditions

strictly prohibit allowing any member of the legal profession to

become a member of our Americans 4 Justice-SC education club.


     Lon understands that some of those American attorneys might

like some of our vital education services, and some of them might

be willing to help us succeed in our vital education missions


     Unfortunately, we cannot trust any member of the legal

profession to become a member of Americans 4 Justice-SC. 


     Lon Willoughby understands that all graduates of an

American Law School have probably been brainwashed

to be obedient and subservient to the "legal brotherhood" and to

all judicial authority, even when it is reasonably clear that the

judicial authority is being used in, or has been used in, an unfair,

unethical manner, or even in a clearly corrupt manner, in a trial

court litigation process. 


     Lon understands that the legal profession can operate in

"their courts" in such an extremely unfair, unethical, and

corrupt manner that he considers "them" to generally be a

special form of organized crime in America. 


Patriotic Actions are Needed

     Our A4J club members will learn how to help us take effective patriotic actions that can eventually help develop much better judicial systems within South Carolina (in the magistrate's courts, in the circuit courts, and in the appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of South Carolina).  Eventually, we may be able to  extend our A4J type leadership in this special judicial area into some other states within the continental America (48 states). 
     We want and need badly judicial systems that are required by enforceable law to operate with a reasonable level of fairness and impartiality toward all litigants, irrespective of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, or the litigant's  personal social status (poor, middle class, or wealthy).     6.  Home-based Business Income Opportunity System.  Lon Willoughby has developed a remarkable home-based income opportunities system that is very easy to accomplish in a dignified, positive, responsible, and emotionally rewarding manner.  It will usually takes only a small amount of time and effort to earn generous Affiliate Referral Awards (finder's fee type commission income). 
     There are no products to purchase monthly or sell on a recurring basis like most MLM network marketing programs.  Most of our education work is done on the Internet and with Email so we also avoid substantial shipping charges monthly.
     You see, we are an alternative health type natural healthcare and wellness concepts education company, and our unique very important and very valuable natural healthcare and wellness concepts educational services can be provided in this manner.  
     Our special six-lessons CQV natural healthcare and wellness concepts home-study Internet based education program is a major education component of our natural healthcare and wellness concepts education services for A4J club members
     The cost of our CQV natural healthcare concepts education program is included in the annual membership fee for our Americans 4 Justice - SC private educational club membership.

Important notes:  

     1.  Copyright Infringement Considerations:  If you accepted our Terms of Use, you may print one copy of any section of this web site for your own use and consideration . You are not authorized to print additional copies, or make photocopies, or use any other form of reproduction, of any  copyrighted information contained in this web site for distribution to any other person.  You may invite others to visit this web site.

     2.  Printing preferences:  Pages of this web site were formatted for 0.6 inch margins on left and right with 0.50 inch top margin and  0.70 inch bottom margin.  You can select "File" and then "Page Setup" to adjust your printer margins to these dimensions before printing any of these pages.   These settings should enable you to print any pages at this web site in Portrait Mode (vertical) - rather than having to print in Landscape Mode (horizontal).

    3.  We do not sell, trade, or share information about our members, or our visitors,  or our Email list (with anyone, other businesses, companies, or other groups).




 


Unfair and Unethical Judicial Actions


     Lon Willoughby understands that most American adults

do not have an adequate understanding of the outrageous level of

unfair and unethical arrogant self-serving elitist despotic and

tyrannical injustice that appears to be commonplace in state

judicial systems in South Carolina.


     Lon Willoughby has had more than 18,000 hours of experience

with some judicial systems in two southern states, and his very 

important judicial experiences found that American judicial

systems are routinely unfair, unethical, and corrupt in an

outrageously self-serving manner anytime that it is beneficial for

members of the "legal profession" to conduct litigation that way.


     Most American adults probably understand that we may have

some problems in our judicial systems, but they have no

responsible understanding of how unfair, unethical, and corrupt

trial attorneys and trial judges can be routinely whenever it is in

some way beneficial to some member (or members) of the "legal

profession" to conduct judicial actions in that manner.  (Providing

benefits of various kinds to the "legal brotherhood.") 


     One of our very important goals and objectives in Americans 4

Justice is to educate our A4J club members about the extremely

serious unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions that can

easily occur in any America judicial system in America (in state

court litigation actions or in federal court litigation actions). 


     During 20+ years of related litigation actions in a distant 

southern state, Lon Willoughby, living in Mauldin, SC, learned the

hard way, and in a very expensive way, that appellate court judges

can be just as unfair, unethical, and corrupt as trial court judges. 


     Generally, appellate court judges were trial court judges 

before they became appellate court judges.  They likely know well

that unfair and unethical self-serving judicial actions occur in the

trial courts below their appellate court level. 


     Lon's extensive litigation experiences during those 20+ years

of related litigation actions found that appellate court judges will

frequently "cooperate" with the unfair, unethical, and corrupt

litigation schemes and tactics that were perpetrated in the trial

court below (by trial court attorneys or the trial court judge). 


     Lon filed filed ten appeal case about those kinds of unfair,

unethical, and corrupt litigation schemes and tactics, but the

appellate court judges ignored those unfair, unethical, and

corrupt litigation actions in eight of his ten appeal cases. 


     He won only two appeal cases out of those ten appeal cases.

If the appellate court judges had wanted to be fair and honest

about those appeals, Lon would have won all of his appeal cases.


     Even with ten important appeal cases, the attorneys and trial

court judges got away with all of their unfair, unethical, and

corrupt litigation schemes and tactics.  The appellate court 

judges did not initiate any responsible investigations about the 

unfair, unethical, and corrupt litigation actions that appellant

 Lonnie Willoughby reported responsibly in his detailed appeal 

briefs.


     The appellate court judges had the full documentary evidence

available to them in the detailed "record on appeal" about the

unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded  type trial court actions

below.  However, they ignored the evidential documents and

chose to not take any responsible judicial actions to initiate

criminal-type investigations of the criminal-type litigation actions

that appellant Lonnie Willoughby exposed in his appeal briefs. 


     Lon's first appeal case (in 1990) was conducted by an attorney

that Lon had hired to represent him in that appeal case.  The

appeal attorney knowingly and willfully betrayed his appeal client,

appellant Lonnie Willoughby, throughout that appeal case. 


     The attorney deceptively "failed to report and expose" in the

appeal briefs that he drafted and filed for appellate Lonnie

Willoughby.  His appeal briefs ignored the unfair, unethical,

and criminal-type litigation actions of two "opposing" trial court

attorneys and an extremely unfair and corrupt trial court judge.


      Consequently, appellant Lonnie Willoughby lost that first

appeal case because his appeal attorney "cooperated" with the

opposing appeal attorney by deceptively failing to expose in said

appeal (in the two appeal briefs that he filed for appellant

Lonnie Willoughby) the opposing attorney's unfair, unethical,

and criminal-minded trial court litigation schemes and tactics.

 

     That situation taught Lonnie Willoughby that members of the

"legal profession" will generally try to protect each other during

litigation actions, even if that means that have to deceitfully and

ruthlessly betray their litigation client (in the trial court actions or

in the subsequent appellate court actions) to accomplish those

"legal brotherhood protective actions." 


     That is what happened to defendant trustee Lonnie Willoughby

in the trial court litigation and in his subsequent appellate court

litigation.  His trial court defense attorney "cooperated" with the

plaintiff's attorney's extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt

litigation actions (introduced five "ambush" surprise complaint

actions during the one day non-jury trial). 


     With more than 20 years of trial court litigation experience in

that state, Lon's defense attorney pretended that he did not know

how to object properly to the introduction of multiple "ambush"

type surprise complaint issues during the one-day trial. 


     The unfair, unethical, and corrupt trial court judge also

willingly "cooperated" with the plaintiff's attorney's "ambush"

surprise complaints scheme and tactic during the trial, and Lon's

defense attorney also "cooperated" with the judge's obviously

unfair and unethical judicial actions during the trial (and after the

trial) when the "Final Judgement" was subsequently being drafted

and finalized for publication as an obviously unfair, unethical, and

fraudulent judicial decision for the one-day non-jury equity court

"bench trial."


     Lon Willoughby learned many months later (after his appeal

case loss) that the Supreme Court of that state had issued a land

mark controlling decision years before that had strictly prohibited

surprise "ambush" complaint issues being raised during a trial

court litigation proceeding (unless both parties had clearly agreed

to the introduction of those additional complaint issues).


     It was clear to the trial court judge that both parties did not

agree to litigate those five surprise "ambush" complaint issues

because trustee Lonnie Willoughby's trial court defense attorney

did object four separate times to the introduction of surprise

complaint issues during the trial. 


     Lonnie Willoughby learned later that his defense attorney's

four objections were deceptively "weak objections" that did not

properly preserve those improper trial issues for appeal actions.


     It was clear to trustee Lonnie Willoughby's defense attorney

that trustee Willoughby had not been noticed properly about

those surprise complaint issues during pretrial discover actions

that had been completed weeks before the trial was conducted.

   

     Lon Willoughby subsequently learned that the two opposing

trial attorneys and the trial court judge (circuit court judge) had

deceptively ignored the controlling land mark decision by the

state's Supreme Court that strictly prohibited surprise "ambush"

complaint issues being raised during a trial court litigation.


      During Lonnie Willoughby's subsequent appeal, his appeal

attorney deceptively ignored that controlling Supreme Court

decision (which could have enabled him to win that appeal case).


     Lonnie Willoughby now understands that the opposing appeal

attorney also had a moral and ethical attorney duty to present that

Supreme Court controlling decision during the appeal case "in

 the interest of justice being provided for the appeal case." 


     The appeal record shows that the opposing appeal attorney 

did not raise that very important controlling case law decision at 

any point during the appeal case.  He again deceptively ignored 

that critically important controlling decision, as he had previously

done during the one-day equity court trial litigation process. 

 

     However, the three-judge appellate panel also had a moral and

ethical judicial duty to raise and consider the critically relevant

effects of the Supreme Court's land mark controlling case law

decision on Lon Willoughby's appeal complaints (should have

been about the unfair, unethical, and corrupt trial court's "Final

Judgment" which had improperly ruled against trustee Lonnie

Willoughby on three of the five surprise complaint issues, but

Lon's appeal attorney did not report properly those complaints). 

    

     The Per Curiam Affirmed appeal decision rendered with no

legal opinion for Lonnie Willoughby's appeal case shows that the

three appellate court judges also totally ignored the relevance of

the state's Supreme Court controlling case law decision on

Lon Willoughby's appeal complaint issues.


     The "Final Judgment" for the trial court case showed that the

trial court judge had ruled in trustee Lonnie Willoughby's favor on

the two original complaint issues that had been presented

adequately in the Plaintiff's filed Complaint pleadings.


     There was no legitimate legal basis for the trial court judge to

rule against trustee Lonnie Willoughby on three of the five

surprise "ambush" complaint issues introduced improperly

during the one-day non-jury trial by the plaintiff's attorney.


     Subsequent events showed that trustee Lonnie Willoughby

was the most competently knowledgeable person involved in the

trial court litigation process regarding the complex trust

administration issues related to the surprise "ambush" complaint

issues that were improperly raised by the plaintiff's attorney

during the one-day equity court trial proceeding. 


     Trustee Lonnie Willoughby understood those surprise

"ambush" trust administration complaint issues much better than

either of the opposing trial court attorneys, or the equity court's

circuit court judge (who knew practically nothing about relevant

complex trust administration federal taxation issues and trust

management issues), or any witness testimony that was

presented during the unfair, unethical, and extremely corrupt and

ruthlessly fraudulent trial. 


     Trustee Lonnie Willoughby's defense attorney was a very

smart trial attorney with more than twenty years of experience

working in the trial court's of that state. However, he deceptively

"cooperated" with the unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded

plaintiff attorney's scheme to ambush Trustee Lonnie Willoughby

during trial with five surprise "ambush" complex complaint 

issues that had not been noticed in the plaintiff's pleadings.


     The transcript record of the trial shows that the trial court

judge also willingly "cooperated" with the plaintiff's attorney

unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded scheme to ambush Trustee

Lonnie Willoughby during trial with five complex surprise

complaint issues.


     Remember that the Supreme Court of that state had previously

issued a landmark trial court decision (years before Lon's

litigation case) that strictly prohibited the introduction of surprise

complaint issues during a trial proceeding. 


As explained above briefly, every trial attorney involved in the

litigation process at trial and in Lon's subsequent appeal case,

and every judge involved in those litigation proceedings, totally

ignored the controlling landmark decision by the state's highest

court (the state's Supreme Court).     


    Lon Willoughby has also litigated in the federal courts (trial

court, appellate court, and the U.S. Supreme Court - twice).  He

found that the entire judicial system (state and federal trial courts

and appellate courts) can operate in a very unfair, deceitful,

deceptive, unethical, and corrupt manner any time they choose.


   This brief report provides accurate statements of fact

that illustrate the extremely unfair, unethical, and

corrupt judicial manner in which litigation actions can be

conducted in American courts (either state court actions or

federal court actions). 


     Lon Willoughby now understands that the best way to avoid

those type of judicial actions is to responsibly avoid getting

involved in any courts, either state or federal courts.  He now

considers the entire litigation process to be a form of "organized

crime" for special benefits to members of the legal profession.

    


What Can American Citizens Do

About Judicial Corruption?


    The first thing to do is to get educated about these serious

problems and avoid, as much as possible, getting involved in

any judicial system in America. 





Judicial Improvement & Reform Project  
     Americans4Justice also has a very important educational program to help patriotic-minded citizens across America learn how to take appropriate actions to substantially improve fairness and impartiality in the judicial system in their State and in the federal courts judicial systems throughout America
      Why should patriotic-minded Americans be concerned about the judicial systems and about how they operate?  Do we really have very serious judicial problems that needs immediate attention by all patriotic-minded American adult citizens? 
      When you review the information that follows, and review the Judicial Reform section of this Website, you will understand why Judicial Reform is an exceptionally important and urgent project for all patriotic-minded Americans.
     You will also learn that several patriotic organizations are already working on very important judicial reform issues in a responsible manner. Our Judicial Improvement and Reform Educational Program will strongly support the work of those vital organizations.
      Our exciting Patriot Team Membership Program and our remarkable Home-based Referral Awards Income Opportunity will ultimately provide very strong and much needed support for many  patriotic groups, and our helpful coordination programs can greatly increase their cumulative effectiveness.
     The A4J Home-based Income Opportunity will eventually enable members of many patriotic groups in America to earn substantial amounts of income in an easy and time-efficient manner when they become members of Americans 4 Justice.  This Affiliate Referral Awards income will enable patriotic-minded American citizens to be much more effective in their teamwork efforts to help us accomplish the stated goals and objectives of A4J.  
     Consequently, our membership can grow very rapidly, and our ability to achieve the vital objectives of A4J will thereby increase at a rapid rate.  We can become a very large and very important patriotic type organization in a relatively short period of time. 


Lon's Judicial Corruption Experience

     As the founder and director of A4J, Lonnie Willoughby enjoyed his 83rd birthday on June 5, 2019.  Lon has  spent a lot of time, over a period of many years, working with our Judicial Corruption Reporting Project  (this started back in 1990). 
     He has spent more than 18,000 hours of his life involved with litigation actions because of the extreme amount of circuit court judicial corruption that he encountered in an equity court litigation process that occurred in 1989.  (18,000 hours is equivalent to more than seven years of full-time work at 40 hours per week.) 
     As a result of that initial judicial corruption, Lon spent many years of his life reporting and exposing a series of corrupt judicial actions in related litigation cases that continued for more than 20 years. 
     The bottom line is that Lon Willoughby discovered that the judicial system in the distant southern state was outrageously corrupt and no matter what he reported and exposed, they (judges and law enforcement officers) were not going to do anything about it. 
     Over those 20+ years, he found that trial court attorneys (lawyers) were typically unfair, unethical, and deceitful liars and "twisters of the truth" at every opportunity. 
     He also found that trial court judges were as unfair, unethical, and as corrupt as they could be.  Lon found that trial court judges routinely "cooperated with" any unfair, unethical, and corrupt litigation scheme and tactic that an opposing attorney (lawyer) could concoct or devise.
      Lon litigated through a series of seven unfair, unethical, and corrupt judges.  Those situations caused him to file more than ten appeal cases.  He gradually learned that appellate court judges could be just as dishonest, unfair, unethical, and corrupt as trial court judges. 
     Lon encountered corrupt appellate court judges numerous times during his ten+ appeal cases.  Consequently, he has a very good understanding of the disgusting level of unfair and unethical judicial corruption that exists in that southern state - which he believes is probably representative of typical judicial corruption in American courts.
     Lonnie Willoughby, living in Mauldin, South Carolina, served as a co-trustee of his parent's inter vivos trust estate.  A serious dispute arose with Lon's brother, serving as the other co-trustee, and that dispute eventually caused an equity court litigation process in the circuit court of the distant state where his parents had lived for many years and had then retired in that state.  Their estate planning trust estate documents were therefore filed in the local circuit court records in that state.
     After discovering the judicial corruption in the circuit court litigation processes, Lon tried to initiate responsible investigations (state and federal level law enforcement agencies) of  extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions that were taken against Lonnie Willoughby in a distant State court equity court litigation process that formerly began in February 1989

     That extreme level of judicial corruption occurred with an unfair and unethical circuit court judge and two local "opposing attorneys" that collusively cooperated with each other in a conspiratorial way to deliberately create an extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial process against co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. 

     The two "local" attorneys knew each other very well, having previously worked together in the same local law firm.  They apparently created that outrageously unfair and unethical judicial process because Lonnie Willoughby (living in Mauldin, South Carolina) had helped his aging parents in the distant state develop an excellent estate planning inter vivos type trust estate that minimized potential federal estate taxes and also minimized potential complexities and attorney fees in the distant state's probate court system. 

     The local circuit court judge and the two "opposing" trial

attorneys deliberately created an unfair, unethical, and corrupt

equity court litigation process for co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby,

Jr.  They apparently wanted to maliciously and ruthlessly punish

Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. for having helped his aging parents

develop an excellent inter vivos trust estate plan. 


     That situation illustrates the extreme level of self-serving 

unfair and unethical judicial corruption that can easily occur in 

the legal profession.

     Related complex litigation actions for Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. then continued into 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and the year 2000.  Lon got a break in litigation actions in year 2000 when his major attorney opponent died three days before Christmas day. 

     That was the extremely unfair and unethical attorney that had corruptly represented co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. in the initial bench trial litigation process that occurred during 1989.

     The litigation actions resumed in 2002 because the deceased attorney had two adult sons in that state who were also practicing attorneys, and they joined together to continue the malicious and ruthless harassment litigation actions against Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. from year 2002 into year 2012. 
     That disgustingly unfair, unethical, and corrupt litigation process stopped in year 2012 only when Lon Willoughby refused to file or participate in any more trial court litigation actions or any more appeal court cases.  He eventually concluded that he was involved in a disgustingly corrupt self-serving judicial system that was hopelessly corrupt - to an extreme degree - in the trial courts and usually in the appellate court system.
     An extremely unfair, unethical, and outrageously corrupt state judicial system ruthlessly abused, coerced, harassed, intimidated, and persecuted Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. for many years because he had responsibly reported and exposed judicial corruption in many trial court actions and in numerous appellate court cases that he filed.  
     The corrupt judicial system retaliated against Lonnie Willoughby in a malicious and ruthless manner because he was a responsible pro se litigant (representing himself - without any attorney assistance) who refused to be intimidated into silence by their outrageously corrupt self-serving judicial schemes and tactics
     Over the years, Lon Willoughby learned that the self-serving judicial systems in America routinely despise any non-attorney who attempts to present his own litigation actions pro se (without attorney assistance).  Lon had been betrayed by attorneys at two law firms in the distant state, and he was not going to let that happen to him again.
     Lon was determined to not allow a series of judicial officers to intimidate him into silence about the extremely corrupt self-serving manner in which the judicial system conducted litigation against non-resident litigant Lonnie  Willoughby, for direct and proximate benefit to a "local" law firm and its chief officer, who became a defendant attorney in Lon's compulsory counterclaim litigation - alleging deceit, fraud,and legal malpractice.
     Lon responsibly reported and exposed in detail a series of extremely unfair and unethical judicial actions that were taken against him by "officers of the court" (judges and trial attorneys/lawyers), as they collusively corrupted the "equity court" litigation process to an extreme level for benefit to the defendant law firm and its attorney.
     The series of judges that became involved in that extended litigation process (20+ years) became more and more unfair and unethical over time, demonstrating to non-resident litigant Lonnie Willoughby that they could be as unfair and unethical and corrupt as they chose to be 
     They were obviously confident that no one (state or federal law enforcement agencies) would prosecute a state judge or local attorneys for alleged unfair, unethical judicial actions against a non-resident pro se litigant
     Consequently, Lon now has a very good understanding of the extremely unfair and unethical litigation schemes, strategies, and tactics  that trial attorneys and trial judges can routinely use to manipulate the judicial processes in American courts in a disgustingly corrupt self-serving manner (state and/or federal courts) - any time they choose to do so - if the local trial attorneys cooperate with those judicial tactics.  It is most unlikely that a local attorney will not "cooperate" with the judge.
     Lon gradually learned that trial court judges and trial attorneys can easily abuse, coerce, harass, intimidate, persecute, and prosecute innocent people, whenever they choose to do so, with essentially no risk at all of a responsible investigation and prosecution for such unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded judicial actions. 
     Yes, that is how unfair, unethical, and brazenly corrupt the trial court litigation can be with arrogant, pompous, elitist "officers of the court" who consider and treat the litigants as lowly serfs in "their trial courts."


Why Is It So Easy for

"Officers of the Court" to

be Outrageously Corrupt?

     Lon's extensive experiences with the judicial systems in American began in 1989 (state court of a distant state). He was sued as a co-trustee of his deceased father's inter vivos trust estate (in the distant state) by a beneficiary of the trust estate (who lived in the distant state).
     The beneficiary sued Lonnie Jr. because she wanted more monthly income from the trust estate than was her appropriate share of the trust's monthly income.  Lonnie Jr. was familiar with her financial status, and he understood that she really did not need additional monthly income from the trust estate.   Her nice custom built home was paid for.  Her like new 98 Oldsmobile auto was paid for, and she had no unusual bills monthly.  She lived modestly and she also had more than $200,000 cash in her bank accounts.
     During the litigation process, Lonnie Jr. learned that the beneficiary  and the other co-trustee (Lonnie's younger brother - age 51 years) apparently wanted Lonnie Jr. removed as a co-trustee because he would not allow the two of them to  dominate and control him as a co-trustee and "manage" the trust estate the way they wanted it managed for their own personal benefits.
     Lonnie Jr. was a very knowledgeable and competent co-trustee, and he knew for a fact that both of them knew essentially nothing about good responsible trust estate management practices.       
     Over a period of years of related litigation actions, Lonnie Jr. (Lon)  learned that trial court judges are treated like royalty who can routinely  operate in an extremely unfair, unethical, despotic, and totalitarian manner at will (any time they choose to do so).
     During 20+ years of related litigation actions, Lon gradually learned that there is nothing that a severely abused litigant can do, in a practical and cost-effective manner, to overcome the severe damages done to a litigant by unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions (or similar actions by an unfair, unethical, self-serving state prosecutor).   
     An abused, coerced, harassed, intimidated, and severely persecuted "innocent" litigant who diligently and courageously tries to get something responsible done about such unfair, unethical judicial actions (or abusive unfair, unethical, and corrupt prosecutor actions) will eventually learn that elitist members of the "legal brotherhood" will always effectively control the final results of any investigation (will likely not occur) and prevent the prosecution of complaints about judges and/or attorneys (lawyers). 
     The abused litigant will gradually learn that the "legal brotherhood" can easily operate like a self-serving good ole' boys club, anytime they choose to do so.  In Lon's extensive litigation experiences, extending from 1990 to 2012 (21+ years), the "legal brotherhood" routinely operated in an extremely self-serving manner.  They casually ignored Lonnie Willoughby Jr's responsible complaints about the extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded judicial actions that had been taken against him.   
     All of Lon's responsible litigant actions in reporting those extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal judicial actions were casually and summarily ignored, by judicial officers (state and federal courts) and also ignored by several law enforcement agencies (state and federal). 
     Lon presented his complaints to the following agencies: the state appellate courts - numerous times, the state's law enforcement agency (like the state's FBI), state prosecutors (several times), the state's attorney general's Office, the governor's legal staff, the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the distant state (FBI - twice), the U.S. attorney's office, a chief federal judge in a federal lawsuit, a federal appellate court, and two related appeal cases to the Supreme Court of the United States.
     Consequently, Lon Willoughby knows how extremely unfair, unethical, corrupt, despotic, and tyrannical state and federal judges can be in a self-serving manner (for benefits to the elitist "legal brotherhood."  Lonnie Jr.  now understands why it is so easy for them to get away with outrageously unfair, unethical, and corrupt self-serving judicial actions.  
     Ask yourself this question:  What can a severely abused litigant do about unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions if the appropriate law enforcement agencies (state and federal) casually refuse to even look at the litigant's evidential documents (records of corrupt litigation actions by trial attorneys and trial judges).  Consequently, all law enforcement  agents that Lon contacted summarily refused to even attempt to investigate the Lon's valid complaints?  
     Who can the severely abused litigant turn to for help at that point?  Unfortunately, with our present "self-regulating" judicial systems, Lon's diligent actions have proven convincingly that there is no practical, cost-effective solution available for a severely abused, harassed, and corruptly persecuted and prosecuted litigant. 
     This outrageously unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial  situation needs to be corrected ASAP!!!  Lon understands that the judicial corruption is so wide-spread and so deeply entrenched within the judicial systems of America that it will take responsible actions by millions of voters to get any helpful state constitutional amendments made that might have some reasonable potential to help develop more fair and just judicial actions within each state. 
     In our situation in South Carolina, Americans4Justice-SC will start with motivation of citizen's actions to amend the SC Constitution regarding litigation actions in state courts.  Judges and attorneys (lawyers) take an oath that acknowledges they have a duty to support and defend the Constitution of South Carolina.  That is why we must amend the Constitution of South Carolina. 
     Any statutory laws that may be developed for this purpose can be easily ignored simply because the state prosecutor involved can easily ignore any statutory laws.  Remember that they ultimately control all investigative results, and they also control any attempts to prosecute unfair, unethical, and corrupt members of the "legal brotherhood" (attorneys/lawyers/judges).
     Lon was so disgusted with the appalling lack of integrity and ethics in the judicial systems and law enforcement systems that he decided to develop an independent educational organization that will help patriotic-minded Americans in numerous ways, including helping them  inform millions of  voters about the ever-present potential for judicial corruption in state and federal court systems. 
     As reported herein, judges can easily operate in an extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt self-serving despotic and tyrannical manner at will.  This is the major judicial problem in America.


"Judicial Problemand the

"Constitution Solution"

Education Project

     Is it reasonable to believe that well-organized dedicated efforts by millions of patriotic citizen voters can help achieve  the judicial reform that is needed badly to establish a responsible level of fairness and impartiality in state and federal courts?  The answer is YES!  However, it will take a lot of coordinated educational actions by patriotic citizens in each state to inform enough voters about this "Judicial Problem" and the  "Constitution Solution." 
     Achieving that desirable objective will not be accomplished easily or quickly, but it can be accomplished with sufficient "patriotic education efforts" in each state. The solution is readily available through an amendment to the peoples' document - the State Constitution of each state.
     "A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step."  If you can qualify for our A4J private education club membership, we can help you get started in our Judicial Reform Project a smart and efficient way!!! 
URGENT NEED FOR ACTIONS BY RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS  
      You can now see and understand why it so important for responsible and sensible American adult citizens to join together to help develop a focused, well-organized education service for patriotic-minded American citizens, and also numerous service organizations throughout America, as quickly as possible.  We must inform responsible and sensible American voters about these disgusting judicial corruption problems in America.  
     The judicial systems in America are continuing to quietly and deceptively increase and consolidate their self-serving dictatorial, tyrannical, monopolistic control over all Americans as each week passes. They systematically gain more judicial power and more judicial control as each week passes, and most Americans have no understanding of these situations. 
     Our children, grandchildren, and future generations of American children will grow up as judicial slaves of a totally dominating and controlling self-serving dictatorial and tyrannical judicial system. 
     We have shown herein that American citizens are already judicial slaves, and that condition gets worse with every week that passes.  We clearly must get to work educating American citizen voters about these extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial situations.  We first educate American citizens to avoid spending any money with their corrupt judicial courts. Start reducing their "funding" as much as possible. 
     The American people do not know that this extremely unconstitutional "judicial power-grab self-serving scheme" is going on, day by day, and they do not understand that this heinous scheme has been going on for many years (all of our lifetimes). 
     Most of our legislators in the United States Congress and in the 50 states do not understand this situation either; they have not been informed about the judicial conspiracy to rule America from the courts with support and reinforcements by multiple legislative actions drafted and promoted by attorney legislators (at the federal level and also in many states within America). 
     Why is it very difficult to expose this heinous judicial conspiracy in the news media (local, state, or the national news)?  Attorney legislators have drafted, supported, and promoted statutory laws that make it very dangerous for individuals or organizations to expose attorney/judicial corruption actions to the public. 
     Individuals or organizations expose themselves to very serious liabilities if they go public with specific information (names, places, litigation case numbers, dates, etc.) because libel  (published media) and slander (verbal) statutory laws were cleverly written and then passed into law that effectively protect attorneys and judges from exposure in the public news media (due to the very intimidating effective threat of very expensive lawsuits). 
     This is the reason that the revealing report presented at this website carefully avoided naming any attorney or any judge or identifying any litigation case name/number and also avoided naming the state involved with the extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal judicial actions that were taken against Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. over a period of more than 20+ years. 
     Lon Willoughby conducted legal research about laws that protect  citizens who report and expose unfair, unethical, and criminal actions in the courts but he found a conspicuous absence of laws at the state and federal level that would provide any immunity from prosecution (civil or criminal) to individuals or organizations that present a responsible report (exposure) of unfair, unethical, and/or criminal actions in the courts (state and federal). 
     Think about this for a moment:  Do trial attorneys and trial judges and appellate judges want this type of badly needed protections passed into law?  Of course not! 
     Is it going to be easy to get state legislators to pass protective statutory laws for ordinary citizens?  Not as long as attorneys in the state legislatures dominate and effectively control the passage of such legislation.  All American voters need to understand that the "legal brotherhood" has stacked the legislative deck in its own favor as much as possible in the 50 states and in the U.S. Congress (House and Senate).  
     The legislature in one southern state passed a state statutory law that made it illegal to conceptually expose unfair, unethical actions/situations in the news media without naming the person(s) involved.  This law further protects attorneys and judges involved with unfair, unethical, and criminal judicial actions because the law makes it a crime for anyone in the state to expose to the public such situations in generalized, conceptual reports, such as the very important judicial corruption report provided at this website. 
     Consequently, in that particular state, it appears that a private person or a news reporter can be prosecuted for a crime if a general conceptional report about attorney/judicial corruption is made public.
     On the other hand, the person making the report can be prosecuted for libel and/or slander if specific persons or organizations are identified verbally or in a published report.  Consequently, unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions are protected in either situation because of the intimidating effect of this Catch 22 combination strategy.  A  person could therefore be taking great liability risk to get involved in exposing to the public either situation.   
     This very intimidating situation will likely cause most people to wisely not take the great risks involved with reporting and exposing unfair, unethical, and criminal actions by judges or other attorneys. 
     That is the way the system is obviously designed to operate.  Attorneys and judges can therefore get away with extremely unfair and unethical litigation actions because the legal deck has been stacked in their favor so much that the judicial systems can easily function as elitist self-serving extortion rackets 
      In effect, a litigant must meekly do whatever the trial attorneys and trial judge colusively decide to do, even when it is outrageously unfair and unethical.  Otherwise, the litigant will likely be punished severely by ongoing litigation and costly litigation expenses if the litigant courageously and responsibly opposes  their unfair, unethical, and corrupt self-serving collusive decision about the litigation. 
     That is what happened to Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. when he responsibly exposed the extremely unfair and unethical Final Judgment that was rendered against him in 1989 in the distant southern state.   


What Can American Citizens Do About the

Judicial "Conspiracy" to Control America?

     Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. believes that patriotic citizen voters in America outnumber attorneys, lawyers, and judges by at least 40 to one.  Lon is also hopeful that all members of the legal profession in America are not  corrupt-minded self-serving elitist despots and criminal-minded tyrants.  Lon believe that many attorneys and lawyers and judges would like to be good patriotic Americans who would like to see all judges responsibly adjudicate in a fair and impartial manner for all litigants. 
     Unfortunately, good attorneys (lawyers) are required to work within  judicial systems that can easily be operated in an extremely unfair,  unethical self-serving manner that is easily corrupted (state and federal courts).  The good attorneys, lawyers, and judges also need our help, and we need their very valuable support to achieve the successful goals that are needed to achieve our Judicial Improvement & Reform Project as quickly as possible.  
     Lon Willoughby believes there are at least 40 to 50 million patriotic-minded citizen voters in America that can quickly turn the tide in the right direction if we simply educate them about the judicial problem and the constitutional solution that is needed.  
     In addition, millions of "not so patriotic" citizens will likely support our Judicial Reform Project when they are informed about our very desirable noble objectives that will benefit most Americans a lot. 
     Consequently, as you can see from this explanation, we simply need sufficient  leadership, guidance, and patriot support to get this very important Judicial Improvement Education Project started in an efficient and cost-effective manner. 
     Fortunately, modern communications systems make it much easier and much less expensive to communicate with large numbers of voters (Websites and other Internet communication sites, E-mail, faxes, phone calls, etc.) than at any time in the past. The timing is right and the time to get involved is now!  
     With enough educated voter support, the Constitution of each state can be amended to provide citizens with a constitutionally mandated  right to establish a Special Grand Jury Review System to evaluate complaints about abusive, unfair, unethical litigation actions by judges and/or state prosecutors.  
     Our A4J founder and director, Lon Willoughby, understands that this is the best, most feasible, most practical, and most cost-effective way to reign in and discipline abusive, unfair, unethical, criminal-minded, dictatorial, or tyrannical elitist actions by trial court judges or appellate court judges, or state prosecutors (solicitors) or police officers or their administrative superiors.   
     Lon also understands that each state constitution (50 states) needs to be amended to provide every citizen or organization with Absolute Immunity from civil law suits or criminal prosecution whenever they  responsibly report to an appropriate government agency or Special Grand Jury any type of unfair, unethical, or criminal actions by any government agent or employee, or any other person. 
     This vastly improved situation would enable responsible reports about unfair, unethical, and criminal actions by trial attorneys, trial court judges and appellate court  judges, and state prosecutors or solicitors, and also federal prosecutors and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents. 
     Lon believes that a similar constitutional amendment needs to be made to the Constitution of the United States, but it would probably be much easier and a lot quicker to get the U.S. Congress to pass a protective statutory law that would provide somewhat similar protection to citizens and/or civic type protective organizations. 
     It is clear that a Constitutional Amendment would be the better choice because it could not be reversed at some point in time by the U.S. Supreme Court, or by another U.S. Congressional mandated law.     
     As soon as we get the first few State Constitutions amended, this exciting education movement will sweep across America in a wonderful wave of freedom and liberty and justice sentiment.  The time for this movement is now, and we need the help of every patriotic-minded citizen in America to accomplish this monumental Judicial Improvement Project as quickly as possible.
     You can learn more about this exceptionally important, well-organized patriotic Judicial Improvement Project  by visiting the website www.JAIL4Judges.org/You will be happy to learn that  Proposed Constitutional Amendments have already been drafted for some states by responsible people who have studied these situation in depth.  
     Consequently, a large amount of very important work has already been accomplished that will help enable our members to work toward achieving this incredibly important and  essential Judicial Improvement & Reform Project. 
     You will also be pleased to learn that America has some courageous, honest, patriotic attorneys/lawyers and retired judges working with other people to help achieve this incredibly important project.  They also want to have judicial systems in America that operate in a fair and impartial manner.  They will understand the importance of this Judicial Improvement & Reform Project. 
     Lon Willoughby is convinced that a Constitution Amendment Project for each individual USA state is absolutely necessary for American patriots to better protect and defend their freedoms. 
     As reported herein, Lon has already acquired substantial experience trying to get appropriate state and federal agencies (judicial agencies and law enforcement agencies) to initiate investigations of a series of extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded judicial actions taken against Lonnie Willoughby by "officers of the court" (judges, trial attorneys, and an unethical, corrupt state prosecutor) in a distant state. 
     After hundreds of hours of work diligently and responsibly reporting Lon's very serious complaints, no judicial agency or law enforcement agency (state or federal) had been willing to initiate a serious and responsible investigation of his very valid complaints about extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded abusive attorney and judicial actions. 
     Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. was ruthlessly subjected to extremely abusive judicial actions by a series of "officers of the court" over an ongoing period of 20+ years.  They clearly tried to severely damage and destroy Lonnie Willoughby as a person and destroy his self-employed business in South Carolina and destroy his marriage and his family life with his two adult sons, family, and friends. 
     They did cause him a great amount of damage and harm (economically, emotionally, and physically), but he survived those malicious and ruthless judicial schemes and tactics and went on to fight again, as shown herein.  
     Visitors to this website will be offered an opportunity to become a part of a Patriotic Team that has the specific objectives of  protecting, defending, and supporting the best features of our American Republic, including the establishment of a fair and impartial judicial system for all litigants, irrespective of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, or social status.
     Our members can learn how they can help build a better and stronger  America for themselves, for their children and grandchildren, and their great grandchildren, and for children of future generations of Americans. 





Jury Trial Education
     A4J club members can also learn about the full rights, power, and authority of educated jurors.  They can learn the truth about the rights of jurors -- can they properly judge the facts and also judge the laws involved with the case?  Are the laws involved with a case being applied in a fair and reasonable manner, or are they being applied in an unfair, unreasonable self-serving judicial manner? 
     A4J club members can learn how to be a good juror because it is very important for American patriotic-minded citizens to fulfill this very important citizen's duty in a knowledgeable and responsible manner.  These actions can help ensure that our precious freedoms can survive and win in an improved court of law. 

     Many Americans do not have a good understanding about their "right" to a jury trial.   Unlike criminal litigation, all civil litigation issues do not  have a protected right to a jury trial -- for the plaintiff or the defendant.  This "right"to a jury trial is usually dependent upon applicable common law  standards.  

     A4J club members can learn about their protected right to a jury trial and also learn about a bench trial (judge evaluates all factual issues and all legal issues - a jury is not allowed when it is a bench trial). 


| Home Page | About Us | Contact Us | Educational Services | Objectives |

Judicial Reform | Membership App. | Income OpportunityTerms of Use |


Copyright © 2005 - 2020 ABC's of Health, Inc.  All rights reserved.


 This department was partially updated on May 16, 2020.