Judicial Improvement 

and Reform Project 

 

Helping Patriotic Americans Achieve the American Dream

 

Freedom, Fairness, Equality, Justice, Opportunity, Health & Happiness

 

Helping Members Become All They Can Be - Achieve Their Ultimate Potential

 

+ + + +  Should Patriots Be Very Concerned About the Judiciary?  + + + +

    
       Lon Willoughby, the founder and director of Americans4Justice, is 79 years of age (born in June 1936).  He has acquired a lot of first-hand experience with the judicial systems (state and federal), having spent more than 15,000 hours conducting legal research, drafting and writing legal briefs for trial court actions and appellate court actions, and actually litigating in trial courts and appellate courts exposing extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal judicial actions that had been 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 courts).   
      It was absolutely 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 the past twenty+ years, Lon has been involved in some form of litigation continuously from March 1989 to year 2010..   He has had as many as three cases in litigation at the same time, while needing to work in his self-employed business 60 to 80 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  judicial actions that he was continuously 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 10,000 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.  The meeting lasted only a few minutes, and they left the office with Lon 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 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.  
     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 (trial court and 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 attorney that Lon had 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, trial, 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.  This 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 repeatedly 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 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, serious traffic ticket, 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 coursecivics, 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 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.

      Janie also understands the great sacrifices of many other Americans, men and women, who worked and fought against powerful forces to defend and protect our American Republic in subsequent wars.  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 harassing 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 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 estate plan 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 an 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 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).

  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 assistance.   Fortunately, Lonnie Jr. was quite knowledgeable about some holistic health issues, 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 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 enabled Lon's family 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 and probate expenses were minimized for Mr. Willoughby's personal estate value (less than $800.00  total, 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 probatable 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 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 trust documents for Mr. and Mrs. Willoughby;  that attorney 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, 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 co-trustees of their individual trust estates in the distant State ((used 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 so Lon Jr. could take over the Willoughby business and help his parents cope with Mr. Willoughby's invalid health condition (due to his stroke in 1982). 

      Lon was able to help his dad a lot with his health due to Lon's serious interest in health and nutrition issues.  Lon and Janie worked very hard (70 to 100 hours per week) and got the business in good shape so it could be sold.  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 and 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 non-jury "Equity Court" 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 complaints against Co-trustee Lon Willoughby, in addition to the two complaints filed in the Plaintiff's Complaint (pleadings).  The "smoking gun" complaints should not have been allowed in because Defendant Co-trustee Lon Willoughby had not been properly "noticed" about the additional complaints in any pleading filed by the plaintiff.  In addition, the surprise complaint issues were not raised during the "discovery process" that occurred weeks before the trial date. 

      Due process standards require that all complaint issues be 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 standards require that the defendant be "noticed" (informed) about all complaint issues prior to trial and be given adequate time to prepare any defenses that may be available. 

      Example:  A defendant 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 this manner. Only a small percentage of the civil cases that are filed actually go to trial. 

      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  may present at trial; these must be identified in the Defendant's Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint.  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 because their Complaint is frivolous.  These 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.

     The 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 Lon on three of the five surprise complaint issues.  Lon gave correct testimony about all of the surprise complaint issues, but subsequent events showed that the judge was grossly incompetent to evaluate Lon's testimony about complex trust estate taxation and trust estate administration 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 surprise 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 evaltuations 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 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 conspiratorally 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 complants 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 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 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 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, due to the unfair and unethical "collusive cooperation" from "local" judges.  

      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 try to learn enough about the litigation process and procedures to present his legal issues (claims and defenses)  pro se

      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  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 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 one case into the Supreme Court of South Carolina exposing unfair, unethical judicial corruption.  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.  

      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 section of web site:       http://www.ABCofHealth.com

      These extensive litigation experiences convinced Lon, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the judiciary in America can easily be an extremely self-serving and ruthlessly corrupt extortion racket, 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 most, if not 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 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 self-serving legal tactic will automatically prevent the appellant from having any chance of getting a higher level court to reverse their appeal decision. 

      As anyone can easily see, this is an extremely sneaky, sleezy, 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.  Notice that this tactic was conveniently "provided 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. 

      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 have, 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 judical 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 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 several judges took judicial actions that ruthlessly 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 not get to tell his story 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 different judges made extremely unfair and unethical false statements about Lon in various judgments during his fifteen years of litigation.  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 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 - rather than 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 or 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 Judgments that contain extremely unfair and unethical false statements that will adversely prejudice the appellate court judges against the litigant - if the naive litigant chooses to go to the great expense of an appeal.  Lon's extensive appeal experiences found that appellate court judges will routinely refuse to reverse such fradulent Orders or Judgments, even when the Record on Appeal contains substantial evidential documents to prove convincingly that the disputed statement(s) (in Order or 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 Curium, Affirmed decision without legal opinion.

    7.   Lon learned that appellate judges have given themselves an Ace of Spades type appeal decision called the Per Curium, Affirmed decision without legal opinion.  This decision signifies that all judges on the judicial panel (typically three - theoretically) agreed to uphold the trial judge's judicial decision [regarding the issue(s) that 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 Curium, 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 litigations 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 outrageous 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 Unitied 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 priviledges, 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 experiiences 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 litigations (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, it does not imply that.  Sometimes, judges do not take a personal interest in the outcome of a case and they therefore have no 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. 

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

      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 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 Curium, Affirmed decision that presents no legal opinion for their decision. 

      Remember that a PCA type appeal decision that has no 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 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.  

          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 to trusting and naive litigants in a fair and impartial manner.  

      Lon is therefore determined to help American patriots learn about the judicial situations reported herein and help them learn how we can improve the judicial systems in America.  A4J will help patriots across America accomplish the following vital 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 judical 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 experiences convinced him that unfair, unethical litigation schemes and tactics are common occurrences.  Lon 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 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 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 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 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 complaints, conduct evaluations, and prosecute unfair/unethical judges and/or unfair/unethical prosecutors/solicitors.   This is the best way, and the only 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 qualifiy 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 PrePaid Legal Services, Inc., located in Ada, Oklahoma.

       Lon has been associated with PrePaid Legal, Inc. as an independent sales representative since December 1984 so he is very familiar with the company and the vital membership plans that they have developed over the years.  

      PrePaid Legal 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.PrepaidLegal.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.

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 Email list (with other businesses, companies, or other groups). 

 

   This department was updated on November 24, 2015