|
OUR ULTIMATE 'LEGAL' GOAL: FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUSTICE FOR ALL
Many people would be surprised to learn that the average adult in America is much more likely to need legal services than to need hospital care, during a twelve month period of time. How would you cope with such situations? Do you know how to obtain a legal service family membership plan that can provide a broad variety of high quality legal services for less than 90 cents per day? Who would you call if you needed legal advice quickly about an important legal issue? Would you like to have a toll-free number to call whenever you have legal questions? What actions would you take if you learned that you were the victim of credit card theft?
This information may be very important to your future so
please take a few minutes to read this revealing report.
Did you know that a trial judge can usually "allow" a civil or criminal litigation process
to be conducted in an unfair, unethical, and corrupt manner if he/she chooses to do so?
Do you understand why it would be easy for unfair, unethical trial attorneys and judges to wreck your life emotionally and wreck your life financially during civil or criminal litigation? Do you naively believe that judges always treat litigants fairly and impartially?
It is reasonable to believe that there are many good attorneys and lawyers in America, but it is also reasonable to believe that there are many unethical, greedy, self-serving attorneys and lawyers in America. As you know, legal services can be very expensive. Our website can show you how to obtain an exceptionally valuable low-cost membership that can help you cope with any legal issues, civil or criminal in nature at any point in your future, wherever you may travel in America. Please remember that bad things can happen to good people.
NOTE: Website links are provided on the last page of this thirteen page Justice Report to take you to the official company website for Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. (PPL). Visiting this website will enable you to learn why Americans are joining together in very large numbers to help ensure that they will have access to high quality legal services at affordable prices. More than one million Americans have become PPL members by choosing an excellent legal services membership that can provide more affordable legal services for protecting and defending their precious rights, freedoms, and assets from attack by an unethical or greedy trial attorney.
After you have reviewed the vital information in this report one time, you can go directly to the last page for future access to the link for our PPL website. Please consider putting ABC's PPL Information (info) website in your Favorites so you will have quick and easy access to this website for your future visits and future use.
ABC's of Health, Inc., doing business as (d.b.a.) ABC's of Health & Justice, is an Independent Representative of Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. (PPL), a New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) traded company. Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. , President of ABC's of Health, Inc., is 71 years of age, and he has acquired considerable experience with litigation in state courts and federal courts - defending and protecting his constitutionally protected and secured freedoms and rights. He has acquired sufficient litigation experience to understand that Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. is a very important company because they specialize in providing exceptionally valuable legal service membership plans at low-cost bargain prices. Lon's extensive litigation experiences convinced him that adult American needs to know about these vital legal services because most Americans need this very valuable protection as soon as possible.
Memberships with Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. are available in South Carolina, or any other state, and some provinces in Canada. The membership provides numerous benefits for a low-cost monthly payment. It is a GREAT DEAL so read on and find out why PPL is a very important company for you to know about. This is especially true if you are a patriotic American and sincerely appreciate your constitutionally protected freedoms, rights, and independence as an American citizen. As you know, all Americans have very important rights that are theoretically protected and secured by the Constitution of The United States and/or the state constitution of your state.
Lon believes that all responsible Americans have a sacred duty and responsibility to take appropriate actions to help defend and protect the vital freedoms and rights that have been provided, defended, and protected by very courageous and sacrificial actions of previous generations of Americans. Each generation of Americans must be taught that they need to fulfill their fair share of the patriotic actions needed to support and defend our precious freedoms and rights. We understand that freedom is not free, and achieving a fair and impartial judicial system in state and federal courts is not automatic and is not free either, as shown herein.
Lon's Litigation Experiences Began in 1989 in a Distant State
Lon Willoughby is not an attorney but an interesting set of circumstances caused him to learn a lot about judicial systems in the USA. Unfortunate situations occurred during 1988-1989 that required Lon to participate in civil litigation in a distant state as a Co-trustee of his deceased father's trust estate (established in the distant state in January 1983 - father died November 22,1986).
A trust administration dispute occurred in 1988 with a family member beneficiary of said trust estate. The beneficiary wanted more monthly income from the trust estate assets than Co-trustee Lon believed was the proper amount for her income distribution. He was familiar with the beneficiary's financial situation, and he knew that the beneficiary did not actually need additional income from the trust estate assets. The beneficiary lived in the distant state, where the Trust Agreement document was recorded (court records), and she subsequently sued Co-trustee Lon Willoughby (living in South Carolina) in an effort to force him to agree to increase her monthly income distributions from the trust estate assets. The civil lawsuit forced Lon Willoughby to retain a defense attorney in the distant state to help him defend his very responsible Co-trustee actions (properly refused to approve excessive monthly trust income distributions to said beneficiary, and he tried to resolve the family-member disputes in a responsible, sensible, and low-cost manner).
Lon's financial advisory information had warned that Japan might be subject to a substantial decrease in their stock market and their real estate market. Lon understood that those events could have a major impact upon the world economy and the U.S. economy, and thereby severely reduce the income available from the Willoughby trust estate assets. Unfortunately, both of those very serious economic events did occur in less than a year after the start of the trust income distribution dispute litigation. The Federal Reserve acted quickly to minimize the damages to the U.S. economy, and the major Japanese stock market crash did not disrupt the U.S. economy as badly as it might have otherwise. However, another economic situation that Lon had anticipated might occur did subsequently reduce the income for the Willoughby trust estate assets to less than 1/3rd of the normal income. A bankrupcy caused the failure of a large mortgate note that was held by the trust estate (had previously provided most of the trust estate income).
Lon's previous actions had helped his parents establish a trust estate plan that would enable the Willoughby family to minimize federal estate taxes and probate expenses for his parent's jointly owned estate value. The resulting inter vivos trust estate plan had the potential of legally avoiding about $225,000 in federal estate taxes, and also had the potential of saving the Willoughby family about $60,000 to $80,000 in probate expenses on a jointly owned estate value in excess of one million dollars.
Unfortunately, the beneficiary that sued Lon did not understand the tremendous financial benefits that Lon's Co-trustee actions had provided to the ultimate family estate value, and she did not seem to appreciate or care about those complex actions. The plaintiff's lawsuit wanted more monthly income from the trust estate assets, and she wanted the court to deny any trustee compensation to Lon Willoughby - for his many years of very competent, responsible, and dedicated trustee services with vey complex trust administration issues and several years of very stressful disruptive conditions caused by the ongoing family-member dispute situations.
Trust estate litigation in the distant state is an equity court issue; therefore, Co-trustee Lon was not allowed to have a jury trial. The one-day Equity Court trial that occurred in September 1989 was conducted in such an extremely unfair, unethical, and fraudulent manner that Lon was appalled, disgusted, dismayed, and frustrated that any judge in America would attempt to get away with such an outrageously unfair denial of due process of law standards for a trial. Lon had arranged for a court reporter to record the trial and he paid over a thousand dollars to have the court reporter prepare a transcript for the one-day trial. (Two Volumes - 267 page total)
After carefully reviewing the transcript, it was clear to Lon that his "local" defense attorney had collusively cooperated with a grossly unfair and unethical litigation scheme perpetrated by the plaintiff's "local" attorney - to ruthlessly ambush Co-trustee Lon Willoughby during the trial with five surprise complaint issues. Some of the surprise complaint issues were about complex estate planning technical issues, and the plaintiff's attorney used the surprise complaints to fraudulently support a surprise complaint that Co-trustee Lon Willoughby had mismanaged the trust assets.
During discover actions in June 1989, the plaintiff testified under oath that Co-trustee Lon Willoughby had not mismanaged the trust assets. The transcript of her deposition testimony showed that she was using the litigation to put pressure on Co-trustee Lon Willoughby to "agree" to pay her more income monthly from the trust assets. However, during the subsequent non-jury trial in September 1989, the plaintiff's attorney introduced false surprise complaints against Co-trustee Lon Willoughby in an effort to convince the judge that Lon had mismanaged the trust assets and should be removed as a trustee. None of those complaint issues had been raised in the plaintiff's Complaint (document filed with the Clerk of Court to establish the issues in dispute for the case). In addition to this extreme breach of due process of law standards, the surprise complaint issues had not been raised during the discovery process (completed prior to trial).
The trial transcript showed convincingly that the "local" circuit court judge willingly "cooperated" with the outrageously unfair and unethical litigation scheme to ambush Co-trustee Lon Willoughby at trial with surprise complaints. The Final Judgment (detailed written legal opinion for the case) was rendered several weeks later. Lon had traveled back to South Carolina after the trial, and he subsequently received a copy of the Final Judgment via U.S. Mail. The Final Judgment showed that the trial court judge essentially ruled in Co-trustee Lon's favor regarding the Plaintiff's two original Complaint issues, but the judge unfairly ruled against Lon on three of the five surprise complaint issues.
Lon was appalled, dismayed, and frustrated by the extremely unfair, unethical, and outrageously false prejudicial statements about him in the Final Judgment. He was also very disappointed in the judge's extremely unfair and unethical denial of due process of law standards regarding the surprise complaint issues introduced for the first time during the trial. (smoking gun issues) Lon's defense attorney had objected to some of the surprise complaints being introduced during the trial, but his objections failed to show how Co-trustee Lon would be prejudiced by the surprise complaints. The attorney objected on the basis of materiality and relevance, knowing that any trial judge has broad discretion to deny such objections and also knowing full-well that an appellate court will not reverse a trial judge's decisions regarding such objections. The transcript record of the one-day trial proved conclusively that the trial judge denied all of the objections raised by Lon's defense attorney. The transcript shows conclusively that the trial judge willingly and willfully allowed and enabled the plaintiff's attorney to ruthlessly ambush Co-trustee Lon with a series of surprise complaint issues.
Many months later, Lon's diligent legal research discovered why the defense attorney's objections had not properly preserved judicial error for appellate review. The highly skilled defense attorney made ineffective objections to make it look like he was defending Lon appropriately. With 23 years of trial attorney experience, the defense attorney knew, or should have known, how to object effectively at trial to protect a client from being ambushed during trial with surprise complaints. Lon discovered that the attorney's objections during trial were simply pretense objections - none of the objections showed how Co-trustee Lon's defense efforts would be prejudiced by the judge allowing in surprise complaint issues. However, Lon did not understand what kind of objections were needed until many months later. During the trial, Lon presumed that the exceptionally intelligent defense attorney's objections would properly preserve Lon's right to appeal the trial judge's unfair decision to allow the plaintiff's attorney to present surprise complaint issues during the trial.
After studying the 267 page transcript carefully, Lon was appalled, disgusted, dismayed, and frustrated to see how cleverly the two "opposing attorneys" and the trial court judge had "cooperated" with the obviously planned litigation scheme to ambush Co-trustee Lon Willoughby during trial with several false surprise complaints. The attorneys' collusive ambush scheme deliberately denied Co-trustee Lon a reasonable amount of time and opportunity to prepare his defenses against the additional complaint issues. Lon could have defended himself successfully regarding the additional complaint issues, but he would have needed to present expert testimony by a "professional estate planning and trust administration expert" at trial to competently present a defense for the complex trust administration technical issues involved with some of the additional complaints. This situation illustrates the extremely unfair and unethical nature of the "surprise complaints ambush scheme" used to attack and defeat a very compent trustee.
Lon eventually learned that the plaintiff's attorney had written the Final Judgment document for the trial judge. Lon's Legal research about that issue discovered that this is common practice in the trial courts of the distant state. The attorney used that opportunity to make extremely unfair, unethical, and outrageously fraudulent prejudicial statements against Co-trustee Lon in the Final Judgment - even though it was clear that the records for the litigation and the trial transcript proved conclusively that there was no evidence in the record to support the extremely prejudicial adverse statements about Co-trustee Lon Willoughby (contained in the Final Judgment).
The trial judge signed the fraudulent Final Judgment and thereby completed the outrageously unfair and unethical tar-brush treatment of a very dedicated family member Co-trustee who had responsibly managed his deceased father's substantial trust estate in a competent and diligent manner for several years. The Final Judgment removed Lon as a Co-trustee of his deceased father's trust estate and reassigned all trustee duties to the CPA who had completed the plaintiff's federal tax reports for several years (Form 1040).
This was the same CPA that had testified for the plaintiff during trial and had given false (perjured) testimony about her annual income. Subsequent events proved conclusively that the CPA had under-reported the plaintiff's gross annual income by many thousands of dollars when he testified during trial about the plaintiff's income for the past two years (prior to start of litigation). Lon subsequently obtained copies of the beneficiary's federal Form 1040 tax reports, and they proved conclusively that the plaintiff's income was many thousands of dollars more per year than the amounts presented to the court by the CPA's perjured testimony.
Lon then attempted to get the local sheriff''s office to investigate his complaint about the CPA's perjured testimony at trial. The investigative officer (captain) told Lon that the trial judge would not do anything about such a complaint, even if they investigated it and found Lon's complaint to be true. He suggested that Lon go back to South Carolina and forget about his bad experiences with the trial. He explained that a trial was just a show put on for the benefit of the litigants, implying that the outcome of the trial was usually decided in advance, before the trial began.
Lon eventually understood that the extremely prejudicial statements contained in the Final Judgment were calculated to severely prejudice the appellate court judges against Lon Willoughby, if he chose to appeal. Those extremely unfair, unethical, and false statements would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Lon to be successful with an appeal of the Final Judgment. This is another illustration of the extremely unfair and unethical litigation scheme perpetrated against Co-trustee Lon Willoughby by two corrupt attorneys and a corrupt circuit court judge, acting in collusion with each other, in the distant state's "Equity Court" system.
Discovery Process in the Distant State Court System
The judicial system's discovery process was adopted by the state's Supreme Court many years prior to Lon's trial experience during September 1989. The discovery process is supposed to enable the litigants in each case to have a fair opportunity to review all complaint issues prior to trial and thereby have a fair opportunity to prepare to defend against each specific complaint issue.
During Lon's trial, the two "opposing" trial attorneys and the circuit court's trial judge deceitfully ignored the long-standing Supreme Court case law decisions that set the controlling standards for fair discovery practice and due process of law standards. Lon was very disappointed in the extremely unfair and unethical manner in which the "Equity Court" trial was conducted. After he conducted a lot of legal research about those issues, he was determined to expose the extremely unfair, unethical, and outrageously fraudulent manner in which the non-jury trial was conducted by a circuit court judge in an "Equity Court" trial.
If the one-day trial had been conducted in a fair and impartial manner by the circuit court judge, complying with the reasonable and fair-minded discovery standards that had been established by the state's Supreme Court many years prior to Lon's trial, the Equity Court litigation would have been concluded in Co-trustee Lon Willoughby's favor in September 1989. If Lon's defense attorney had actually defended Co-trustee Lon Willoughby in a competent and responsible manner during the one-day trial, Lon would not have been forced into an extremely unfair, unethical, and outrageously corrupt litigation process that has continued to the present time.
Lon's conducted a lot of legal research about the extremely unfair and unethical manner in which the trial was conducted - Lon learned that the defense attorney had deceitfully betrayed Lon's Co-trustee litigation interests and thereby caused him to lose a case that should have been very easy to win. Subsequent events showed that the "local" attorneys effectively gained control of the trust estate assets through the court's appointment of the "local" CPA as successor trustee for the substantial trust estate assets. The trust estate was funded by Lon's father in December 1985 (inter vivos trust estate).
At that point in his judicial education process, Lon did not realize that the judicial systems in America routinely allow judges to do practically anything they choose to do, no matter how unfair or unethical their judicial actions may be to the litigants involved. Lon did not understand that judges can get away with casually and routinely allowing trial attorneys to conduct litigation using unfair, unethical, and fraudulent litigation schemes and tactics.
Lon subsequently learned that a severely abused and persecuted litigant can responsibly report corrupt judicial actions to appropriate law enforcement agencies in a diligent manner, but it is highly unlikely that any responsible investigation will be conducted regarding such complaints. Over a period of many months, Lon spent a lot of time, effort, and money reporting to various government agencies that the litigation process had been conducted in an extremely unfair, unethical, and fraudulent manner. He made responsible reports to the following government agencies: the state's appellate court, the state attorney general, the state's governor, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the U.S. attorney assigned to that area of the distant state.
Lon went to a lot of trouble and expense to take those actions, but no one made a responsible effort to initiate an investigation of Lon's complaints about the unfair, unethical, and fradulent litigation process, even though Lon had an abundance of valid documentary evidence to substantiate the basis of his complaints. None of the authorities contacted had any interest in reviewing Lon's evidential documents. They simply ignored his complaints as if unfair, unethical judges were commonplace news and alleged corrupt judicial actions were not considered to be bad enough to warrant an investigation (no one had been killed or brutally beaten up by the judge or the two trial attorneys). In effect, Lon learned that law enforcement agencies routinely "allow" judges to "operate beyond the reach of the law" - even when their abusive judicial actions allegedly violate criminal law standards.
The distant court and local attorneys have controlled the trust estate assets through the court appointed CPA as the successor trustee since October 1989. Lon is one of the primary beneficiaries of the trust estate, but the judicial system has denied Lon access to his share of the trust estate assets for many years. The "local" law firm perpetrated various unfair and fraudulent litigation schemes against non-resident Lon to obtain multiple judgments against him, and then brought a garnishment action against the trust assets. The cumulative judgments rendered against Lon now exceed $80,000, counting the "attorney fee awards" and interest that have been accumulating against Lon because of the multiple unfair and fraudulent judgments entered against him.
Judges repeatedly retaliated against his pro se efforts to defend himself from a ruthless barrage of unfair and unethical criminal-minded litigation schemes. Pro se means litigating for self - not being represented by an attorney. In addition to the accumulating fraudulent judgment costs reported above, the litigation that started in March 1989 has been very expensive for Lon, costing him many thousands of dollars from personal funds. He has also lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential income, as he diligently persisted in trying to get something responsible done about the extremely unfair unethical, and outrageously corrupt judicial actions that were taken against him in the distant state's trial courts and appellate courts.
Due to Lon's persistent ongoing efforts to defend himself pro-se from the extremely unfair and unethical litigation actions perpetrated against him by the law firm in the distant state, Lon has been unable to hold any job since 1989. The ongoing litigation circumstances required that Lon be self-employed so he could adjust his work schedule, on a day-to-day basis as needed, to quickly adapt to the extreme demands placed upon his time schedule by the ruthless and malicious ongoing litigation process.
The extremely unethical defense attorney who deceitfully betrayed Lon's Co-trustee litigation interests at trial in September 1989 subsequently subjected Lon to a ruthless barrage of vindictive and malicious harassment and persecution litigation schemes and tactics in an ongoing manner, due to Lon's refusal to pay the law firm any more money for their grossly incompetent and fraudulent litigation services. That dispute has continued from 1989 to the present time due to an extremely unfair and unethical judicial system.
If Lon could have afforded to retain attorneys to do the litigation work that he has done for himself pro se, his litigation expenses for attorney fees would have likely exceeded several hundred thousand dollars. Unfortunately, the judicial system operates in such an extremely unfair self-serving manner that Lon was unable to locate a trial attorney, within 65 miles of the court, who had sufficient courage and integrity to represent a non-resident client that wanted to expose and prosecute his former "defense attorney" for deceit, fraud, legal malpractice, and conspiracy to commit fraudulent litigation through collusive actions with an opposing attorney and a circuit court judge. Consequently, Lon had no viable choice but to give up or to present his own litigation actions pro se. He learned how to take those actions in a competent manner through extensive legal research and study as the litigation progressed through various stages in the trial courts (county courts and circuit courts) and twelve appeals to the appellate court in the distant state.
Lon was appalled, disgusted, dismayed, and frustrated by the extreme injustices that he was being subjected to in a ruthless manner by a series of judges in the distant state. Lon spent thousands of hours working to expose the heinous judicial corruption that he was systematically subjected to in an ongoing manner from September 1989 to the present time. The litigation in the distant state is still ongoing, after many years of relentless, ruthless, and malicious harassment of Lon Willoughby. The distant attorneys were determined to punish Lon Willoughby severely because 1) he had helped his parents develop an estate plan that would minimize federal estate taxes and minimize probate expenses and 2) because he refused to allow them to get away with their fraudulent litigation schemes and tactics and 3) he refused to give in to their unfair, unethical, and corrupt extortionist demands for attorney fees.
Lon learned that the judicial systems and law enforcement agencies cooperate with each other to effectively ignore legitimate complaints by severely abused litigants. However, after all these years, Lon is still trying find a way, or help develop a reasonable and effective way, to get responsible actions taken by appropriate law enforcement personnel when officers of the court (state or federal) conduct litigation actions in an extremely unfair and unethical manner. Lon is still determined to find, or help develop, an effective way to expose, and have investigated and prosecuted, extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt collusive and conspiratorial litigation actions between trial attorneys and judges (trial courts and/or appellate courts),
As a direct consequence of the extremely unfair and unethical judicial actions taken against Co-trustee Lon Willoughby in 1989, he has participated in numerous litigation actions, in state courts and federal courts, in the capacity of defendant or counter-claimant in state cases and in the capacity of plaintiff in his federal case. Lon has already initiated 12 appeal cases in the distant state and initiated one appeal in the federal judicial system. Lon took his first state court appeal litigation all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States (1991), and he subsequently took his federal case appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (1996).
Lon has traveled about 9,000 miles in his automobile as a consequence of the ongoing litigation process. He has been required to make several trips to the distant state for various litigation actions - hiring attorneys, depositions, motion hearings, conducting legal research, reviewing litigation records, participating in trials and appeals, etc. On one of his trips to the distant state, Lon's wife, Janie, was driving in a very heavy rainstorm. An oil tanker truck crashed into the rear end of their like-new Mercury station wagon, just a few seconds after Janie had to stop behind a large "moving van" truck that had stopped on the Interstate Highway. Janie had to stop because the vehicle right in front of the van truck had stopped due to extremely heavy rain. Unfortunately, the oil tanker truck traveling behind the Willoughby station wagon was unable to avoid crashing into the rear end of the station wagon. Janie and Lon were almost decapitated in the wreck when their station wagon was forced into and under the back end of the large van truck that had stopped in front of them. The wreck totally demolished their station wagon. Janie and Lon were very lucky because they could have suffered fatal injuries in this very bad wreck (smashed between two large trucks).
|
Consider this situation for a moment: What would you do if your constitutionally protected freedoms and/or rights are attacked, challenged, or violated in a very serious manner by an individual, a company, or a government agent or agency? If you do not have access to affordable legal services that are dependable, reliable, and firmly committed to aggressively helping you defend your freedoms and rights in a competent and responsible manner, what is the likely outcome of this litigation scenario?
Court Systems in America - State and Federal Courts
+ + + + + + + +
Do They Typically Operate In a Fair and Impartial MannerToward Pro Se Litigants?
Americans naturally want to believe that the court systems (state and federal) operate in a fair and impartial manner toward all litigants. After all, this is what the court systems are supposed to do, right? However, Lon Willoughby's extensive litigation experiences, in state and federal courts, convinced him that judges can easily "choose" to not provide a fair and impartial judicial forum for the litigation process.
Under such circumstances, it is easy for an unfair, unethical judge to "cooperate" with the plaintiff's attorney (civil case), or the prosecutor (criminal case), and knowingly and willfully rule against or "convict" an innocent person. This extremely unfair, unethical situation can easily occur unless the defense attorney has sufficient courage and integrity to aggressively defend the client's litigation interests. The defense attorney may need to aggressively oppose the judge's evident bias to favor the plaintiff's attorney or the prosecuting attorney.
Lon Willoughby learned that such courage and integrity among trial attorneys is difficult to find. Why is this so? One major reason is the fact that most trial attorneys practice law before the same judges numerous times, and they cannot afford for any of these omnipotent judges to get irritated or upset with them. Attorneys understand that judges may retaliate against them in future cases or in other ways to severely damage their legal careers. Judges can communicate with each other and collusively retaliate against any trial attorney who does not willingly "cooperate" when a judge chooses to provide biased favoritism toward an opposing party.
Over time, Lon learned that he had no choice but to represent himself in the trial court and the appellate court in the distant state because the judicial system operated in such an unfair and unethical manner toward Lon as a non-resident defendant that he could not locate a trial attorney that could be trusted to aggressively represent Lon's litigation interest at trial or on appeal. As shown in this very revealing report, it is extremely difficult to find a trial attorney or lawyer who has sufficient courage and integrity to aggressively represent his client's litigation interest before an unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded judge.
Lon's extensive litigation experiences proved conclusively that it is practically impossible to get anything done about unfair, unethical self-serving judicial actions after they have occurred. He learned that appellant court judges can easily act in an unfair and unethical self-serving manner and generally refuse to do anything about unfair, unethical judicial actions by a trial court judge against a pro se litigant. Lon has been involved in several litigation actions where the trial judge issued unfair, unethical fraudulent orders to make the case come out the way the judge wanted, contrary to the facts and evidence presented in the case. He learned that trial judges and appellate court judges apparently dispise any litigant who attempts to proceed pro se. Judges know they can "control and manipulate" attorneys and lawyers because they must act in a subservient manner or suffer serious career consequences..
When Lon exposed those extremely unfair and unethical judicial actions on appeal, the panel of appellate judges usually whitewashed the entire situation by issuing an unfair and unethical appeal decision, in conflict with the applicable legal standards. Lon learned that appellate court judges can easily ignore serious reversible error by a trial court judge. Lon also learned that appellate court judges usually refuse to report unethical or corrupt judicial actions to appropriate authorities and they do not request appropriate investigations of well-documented judicial actions that are obviously unfair and unethical, and/or criminal in nature (falsifying orders or allowing other official records in the case to be falsified - motions, etc.) .
Local law enforcement officers and/or the state prosecutor can easily "cooperate" with unfair, unethical judicial actions by simply refusing to conduct a fair-minded and responsible investigation of legitimate complaints. Lon learned that the judicial systems in America (trial courts and appellate courts) can operate in an extremely unfair, unethical manner any time they choose. He learned the judicial systems usually have such a "cooperative" working agreement with law enforcement agencies that it is practically impossible for a severely abused, harassed, and/or persecuted litigant to get any state or federal law enforcement agency to investigate legitimate complaints about extremely unfair, unethical judicial actions by a judge or by a trial attorney (also an officer of the court).
Think about this situation for a moment: Theoretical freedoms and rights that cannot be effectively defended and protected, in an affordable manner whenever they are challenged, are essentially freedoms and rights that have no real practical value. They are just impressive words in an important government document that the person will likely be unable to defend and protect in a court of law when said freedoms and rights are severely abused or challenged by any entity that is financially stronger than the opposing litigant.
Judicial Corruption Exposed to Supreme Court of the United States
Lon personally prepared and submitted two very important cases to the Supreme Court of the United States, exposing extremely unfair, unethical, self-serving judicial corruption. The first case reported extremely unfair, unethical actions by a state appellate court's decision. The second case reported extremely unfair and unethical judicial actions by a federal appellate court's decision.
Those legal actions helped Lon understand that submitting a Petition for Writ of Certiorari legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court is a very complex, difficult, and an expensive process that requires an enormous amount of preparation work. Lon now understands that the paperwork requirements to submit an appeal case to the U.S. Supreme Court are absurdly laborious - because the high court's rules make it very difficult to prepare the legal brief. A Petition for Writ of Certiorari is a specific type of legal brief that petitions the high court to review the judicial actions of a lower level court - can be either a federal appellate court's decision or a state appellate court's decision. The Petition must show why serious errors were committed by the lower court's actions and provide the factual and legal basis for one's complaint issues.
One must submit the Petition in published bound-book form, with a very specific small size format, with pages printed on both sides. This format requires every word of the entire legal brief to be retyped - no photocopy reductions are allowed to fit standard legal documents (8 1/2" X 11") into the small-size book format - printing must be front and back of each page, like a regular book. In addition, one must submit exactly 40 copies of the book (Petition) to the high court. Because no photocopies of exhibit documents are allowed (due to small size format of the book), all exhibit documents must be retyped to get the documents into the small size format required for the Petition book. This requirement forced Lon to do an enormous amount of typing to publish his large amount of exhibit documents (including transcripts). This book size requirement is an extremely unfair, unreasonable bureaucratic legal standard that greatly increases the cost, time, trouble, and work involved with presenting a Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is very difficult and expensive to comply with the very stringent filing requirements of this court, and it costs many thousands of dollars to have a law firm submit a Petition to the high court. Lon believes the court's expensive format requirements are designed to discourage litigants from attempting to present an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On average, approximately 7,000 cases are submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court annually, but the nine justices only have time to hear about 50 cases per year. As you can see, this situation presents a litigant with almost no chance of getting the nine justices of the high court to adjudicate a submitted case. Each Justice has staff attorneys (law clerks) assigned to their office, and each group of staff attorneys theoretically make a preliminary review of each new case that is successfully filed with the high court. Each of the nine groups of attorneys (law clerks) then review each case (approximately 7,000 per year) and make a recommendation to their assigned Justice, as to whether the case has sufficient special merit to be worthy of adjudication by the nine justices of the high court.
The nine Justices meet periodically to vote on various cases and decide which cases have sufficient special merit to be adjudicated by the high court. Consequently, one can see that the staff attorneys' recommendations, to their respective justice, must eliminate practically all cases from the adjudication process because it is understood that the nine Justices only have time to review and write an opinion for about 50 cases per year.
The "rule of four" applies in the subsequent voting process that is conducted by the nine Justices. If four or more Justices vote to review an appeal Petition, the case will be adjudicated by the court and a judicial opinion will be written about the merits of the argument issues presented in the Petition. Otherwise, the court responds to a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with a one page Order that simply contains two words: "Petition Denied."
This judicial process is known to be so cumbersome, so expensive, and so hopeless that most trial attorneys do not submit a single case to the U.S. Supreme Court in their entire career. They know that it will very likely be a waste of time, effort, and money to submit a Petition to the high court. Think about the odds of getting a case adjudicated - 50/7000 odds. It is actually much worse than this because a substantial part of the 50 cases that are adjudicated by the high court each year are cases that the high court is required to adjudicate (required by established legal standards - death penalty cases, disputes between states, etc.). So your realistic odds are actually less than 1 in 1000 of getting your civil case Petition adjudicated by the justices of the high court.
Would you invest many thousands of dollars into a situation where the odds of losing all of your money are at least 999 out of 1000 chances? That is how badly the odds are stacked against a civil case litigant submitting a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, Lon Willoughby diligently submitted two separate cases to the high court in his determined efforts to expose the extremely unfair, unethical judicial actions that he was ruthlessly subjected to over a period of several years by the state and federal courts (in the distant state).
Lon wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to take some responsible judicial actions about his cases and establish precedent setting decisions that would show that the high court will not tolerate extremely unfair, unethical litigation actions against a litigant in any lower court, either federal courts or state courts. However, in each of Lon's successive cases, the justices of the Supreme Court collectively voted to not hear the case (review the case in depth and provide a written opinion about the merits of the legal issues presented in the appeal Petition. For each of those cases, Lon received the form letter (Order) stating "Petition Denied." Consequently, no responsible judicial actions of any type were taken by the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to help correct the extremely unfair, unethical judicial actions that were reported to the high court in each of Lon's detailed Petition for Writ of Certiorari legal briefs (bound small book format - send 40 printed copies to the high court).
Lon's experiences with the high court's extremely bureaucratic appeal procedures, and his numerous appeals in the distant state court's state and his litigation actions in the federal trial court and appellate court systems, enabled him to understand that the judicial systems in the United States operate in such an extremely unfair, unethical self-serving manner that they can easily be a heinous fraud upon the public trust placed in the judiciary (state and federal). Lon's extensive legal research of several hundred case law decisions convinced him that judges can usually do whatever they please to unfairly persecute a pro se litigant, even in a ruthlessly unfair and unethical manner, and they will very likely get away with it without being investigated or punished in any responsible manner by any government agency. Furthermore, there is no practical, cost-effective way for a severely abused litigant to obtain compensation for the great harm done to the litigant, emotionally, financially, or socially, by the unfair, unethical judicial actions that were taken against the litigant. You might ask, "Why does this outrageously unfair situation still exist in America?"
Absolute Immunity of Judges From Civil Litigation Damage Complaints
Judges know, as Lon now knows, that all judges in America have Absolute Immunity from any civil damage claims, even if they act maliciously, ruthlessly, and/or viciously toward a litigant and cause the litigant great harm, financially, emotionally, and/or socially. The courts gave themselves this Absolute Immunity status in an extremely self-serving manner, without any constitutional authority for doing so. Lon's legal research found that several case law decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States have upheld the judicial concept of Absolute Immunity, even though Lon's diligent legal research found that there is no legitimate authority for this grant of extreme self-serving power to the courts. Lon is now convinced that the Absolute Immunity concept has had an extremely corrupting influence upon judges throughout America's judicial systems (state courts and federal courts, as will be shown in the information presented below.
Trial judges also know, as Lon now knows, there is no responsible fair-minded judicial oversight system available to help a severely abused litigant correct (or stop) unfair, unethical, and even criminal-minded judicial actions against the litigant (trial courts or appellate courts). Lon now understands that trial court judges and appellate court judges can conduct litigation actions in an extremely unfair, unethical, and fraudulent self-serving manner, and they will likely get away with it.
Lon has learned that there is a long-standing, well-established understanding that there is almost no chance that such judicial actions will be investigated or punished in any manner. Consequently, extremely abusive and corrupt judicial actions can continue for many years, as they have with Lon Willoughby, for any litigant who responsibly reports and exposes such judicial actions to appropriate government authorities.
Lon has personally researched and read numerous case law decisions where judges and/or prosecutors acted in an unfair, unethical manner to manipulate a case to get it to come out the way they wanted the case to conclude. Those case records show that unfair, unethical, and fraudulent judicial actions by judges or prosecutors are rarely investigated responsibly and almost never punished, even when they conduct grossly or outrageously unfair, unethical, and fraudulent judicial actions in a litigation process. Consequently, Lon now understands that the judicial systems in America can easily be a heinous self-serving farce and fraud upon the sacred public trust (and upon litigants' naive trust in the judicial systems).
In essence, from Lon's present vantage point of extensive experience with the judiciary, the judicial process appears to be a well organized extortion racket, where trial attorneys are enabled and allowed to extract as much money from their clients (victims) as possible. Do some trial court judges routinely get financial kickbacks or other forms of payoffs from "local" attorneys who participate in such corrupt judicial payoff schemes? It would take a responsible FBI investigation to answer this very important question, but do FBI attorneys have sufficient integrity to investigate and then prosecute unfair, unethical judges? It is important to remember that judges are very important members of the legal brotherhood.
In many years of diligent efforts, Lon has not been able to get anyone in law enforcement to look at his evidentiary documents in a responsible manner, and no law enforcement agency, state or federal, has made any responsible effort to investigate Lon's valid and very substantial complaints about unfair, unethical judicial actions in the state court system. This situation is a vivid illustration of just how totally corrupt the judicial and law enforcement "brotherhood" can be in an outrageously unfair, unethical self-serving manner for their mutual benefit, irrespective of the tremendous emotional, financial, and social damages that may be perpetrated upon a severely abused and persecuted litigant.
+ + + + + Nineteen Years of Ongoing Related Litigation Cases and Appeals + + + + +
and
Nineteen Years of Unfair, Unethical Judicial Actions Against Lon Willoughby
At this point in time, Lon has spent more than 15,000 hours conducting pro se litigation actions - extensive legal research, writing numerous complex legal briefs, and participating in several discovery processes, participating in numerous motion hearings, several trial court litigation actions, and twelve appeal litigation actions. Those complex legal actions occurred in an ongoing progressive manner and they have continued for more than seventeen years (still going on at this time). The initial civil litigation began in March 1989 (family member dispute over Lon's co-trustee actions - he would not agree to release excessive income funds to a family member trust beneficiary). After being betrayed by two attorneys (trial court action and then appeal court action) Lon gave up on attorney legal representation in 1990 and began litigating pro se (representing himself - without an attorney).
Lon repeatedly exposed numerous serious incidents of unfair, unethical, and criminal judicial actions to several trial judges and to several appellate court judges; however, he did not encountered any judicial officer who would request appropriate law enforcement agency personnel to investigate Lon's serious complaints in a responsible manner. Lon's valid complaints about very serious unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions against him were summarily ignored by trial court judges and/or appellate court judges - every time Lon filed a formal complaint with the state judicial system in the distant state (more than 15 complaints filed).
Lon's valid complaints were also ignored by the chief federal judge for that area of the distant state - when Lon prosecuted his federal case in propria persona, sui juris, pro se against three trial attorneys in the distant state for deceit, fraud, legal malpractice, and conspiracy to perpetrate fraudulent litigation. The federal judge repeatedly refused to provide a fair and impartial judicial forum for litigation of Lon's very serious complaints against the three attorneys. State court litigation was ongoing at that time and one of the attorneys colluded with the state court judge to prosecute Lon Willoughby for contempt of court and issue arrest warrants for him. That extremely unfair and unethical litigation scheme and tactic prevented Lon from traveling into the distant state to participate in the state court litigation (to defend himself) because he would be arrested and put in the local county jail for ten months.
Lon realized that he would not be able to effectively defend himself in the ongoing state court litigation while in "their" jail, and he understood that his small business in Greenville, South Carolina could not function effectively or even survive if Lon traveled to the distant state and was arrested and jailed for ten months. The extremely unfair, unethical, and fraudulent contempt charges and arrest warrants scheme and litigation tactic also denied Plaintiff Lon Willoughby the freedom to travel into the distant state to continue with the prosecution of his federal court litigation against the three attorneys. Lon also realized that there was a serious possibility that he would "die" while in "their" jail - that event would enable the corrupt attorneys and judges to easily get away with their heinous judicial actions against non-resident defendant Lon Willoughby.
Temporary Restraining Order
Lon filed a detailed motion report in his federal court case, with many exhibit documents, to fully expose said unfair, unethical judicial schemes and tactics. The chief federal judge for that federal court district of the distant state just happened to be the judge assigned to adjudicate Lon's federal case. Lon's motion report exposed the extremely unfair and unethical "state court" judicial actions (contempt charges and arrest warrants scheme) to the chief judge in substantial detail and moved the federal court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would enable Plaintiff Lon Willoughby to travel into the distant state without fear of being arrested due to the arrest warrants that every sheriff in the state had for Lon's arrest.
The motion for a TRO also requested an opportunity for Lon to present oral testimony before the federal judge about those "state court judicial actions" and show how they were unfairly, unethically, and illegally interfering with the federal court litigation process. However, the federal judge refused to take any judicial action that would help enable Plaintiff Lon Willoughby to have a fair and full opportunity to continue prosecuting his case pro se in the federal court. Consequently, Lon Willoughby was ruthlessly and maliciously prevented from having a full and fair chance to proceed with his pro se prosecution of his federal civil litigation complaint, and he lost his federal case simply because he was denied a fair and full opportunity to present his case in a federal court jury trial. Lon was confident that he would win his case if he could simply get his complaints before the jury. However, the federal judge dismissed Lon case before trial because Lon Willoughby could not complete the pretrial prosecution actions (unable to travel into the distant state).
This appalling, disgusting, and very frustrating unfair, unethical, criminal-minded "judicial process" has gone on for more than seventeen years. During those years, Lon took appropriate actions to have three state court judges recused (removed) from his cases due to their evident prejudice against the non-resident litigant who litigated pro se in "their" court. Although each judge was subsequently removed from Lon's case, there was no punishment for any of the unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded judicial actions that had been taken against Lon Willoughby. In addition to that outrageous level of judicial fraud, the prejudicial damage done to Lon's legal issues by the recused judges still remained after said judges had been removed from the respective cases.
When Lon timely filed motions that moved for corrective actions by the successor judge (as the relevant statutory law and case law decisions allowed), the successor circuit court judge responded by summarily ignoring all of the relevant legal standards cited in Lon's successive motions (one motion for each improper judicial decision by a recused judge). The successor judge subsequently punished Lon in an extremely unfair, unethical ruthless manner because Lon had exposed alleged unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded judicial actions that had been perpetrated upon Lon Willoughby by the recused judge. The judge issued an injunctive order that prohibited Lon Willoughby from filing any pleadings in the case unless they were signed by an attorney (in that state).
"Affirmed, Per Curiam Affirmed" Appeal Decision - With No Written Legal Opinion
Lon timely appealed this outrageously unfair and unethical punishment action (injunctive order) because it was an extremely unfair, unethical, criminal-minded effort to deny Lon Willoughby a fair and impartial judicial forum and deny him basic due process of law standards. The appellate court subsequently issued a Per Curium, Affirmed decision, without providing any legal opinion explaining why they totally ignored the obvious unfair, unethical, criminal-minded judicial actions taken against Lon Willoughby by the trial judge. The Per Curium, Affirmed decison, with no legal opinion, also failed to show why the judicial panel of judges totally ignored the controlling legal standards and advisory legal standards that strongly supported Lon's appeal arguments. He had a constitutionally protected and secured right to present his own defense sui juris, in propria persona, pro se, but the trial judge and the appellate judges simply ignored the protected rights that Lon Willoughby had pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the distant state.
An Affirmed, Per Curium Affirmed decision, without providing a legal opinion, is the court's Ace of Spades legal decision. A Per Curium Affirmed decision means the three judge appellate panel agreed unanimously to affirm (support) the trial judge's disputed judicial actions. This appeal decision also shows that the appellate judges refused to write a legal opinion that would explain the legal basis that they used to support their appeal decision.
In Lon's twelve appeals in the distant state's judicial system, the appellate court has usually rendered a Per Curium, Affirmed decision (with no legal opinion). Those unfair and unethical judicial decisions were repeatedly taken against Appellant Lon Willoughby, even though the relevant legal standards strongly supported Lon's appeal argument issues for each of his appeals. In most of Lon's appeals, the three judge appellate panel refused to provide a written legal opinion that would show the legal basis of their reason(s) for affirming (supporting) the trial judge's alleged unfair, unethical, and/or criminal-minded judicial actions against Lon Willoughby.
Lon reluctantly came to understand that a Per Curium, Affirmed appeal decision, without legal opinion, can be utilized any time an appellate panel of judges (three judges) are willing to ignore the controlling and supporting legal standards presented in the Appellant's Appeal Brief, and arbitrarily rule in conflict with the controlling and/or supporting legal standards for the disputed issues. In other words, a Per Curium, Affirmed decision, with no legal opinion, enables the three judge appellate panel to issue an extremely unfair, unethical, and fraudulent appeal decision any time they choose to take this action to affirm the trial judge's disputed judicial actions, as reported in the Appellant's Appeal Brief.
Expense and Futility of Appeals
After many years of ongoing litigation in the trial courts and numerous appeals, Lon is convinced that the judicial systems in America are allowed to operate in an extremely unfair and unethical manner any time the trial judge and the opposing attorneys (plaintiff/defendant) collectively "agree" to collusively conduct the litigation in this manner - for their own self-serving benefit or for benefit to their "legal brotherhood."
Conducting an appeal can require a lot of work, time and effort. One must accomplish the legal research that is needed to locate relevant case law decisions (decisions that courts have previously rendered that will support the validity of one's appeal argument issues). One may need to research relevant statutory laws also. Then one must draft all of the legal arguments in the format designated in the Rules of Appellate Procedure and then prepare the detailed typed legal briefs that will be filed in the appeal with the appellate court and all opposing parties.
In addition to several thousand dollars in attorney fees to conduct an appeal action, it usually costs several hundred dollars in filing fees with the courts involved (trial court and appellate court fees) and several more hundred dollars to have the Clerk of Court's staff personnel prepare a formal certified record of all relevant trial court actions (documents) and then file this comprehensive record, including relevant transcripts, with the clerk of the appellate court. Compare all of that work and expense with the appellate court's very easy and very simple response to said appeal - a one page order with only three words. The Order simply states "Affirmed, Per Curiam Affirmed."
As shown above, it is very easy for an appellate panel of three judges to write a very short one page order that simple states Affirmed, Per Curiam Affirmed. A Per Curiam Affirmed appeal decision (PCA) is a shortcut way of saying that the judicial panel of judges (usually three judges) unanimously agreed with (approved) the specific judicial actions that were objected to and reported in the Appellant's Appeal Brief (legal brief).
One can easily see that the appellate panel's (judges) refusal to provide a written legal opinion (one complete sentence or more) that reports the legal basis of their unanimous decision can easily be abused by unfair, unethical judges as an easy way to manipulate the outcome of the appeal case. This judicial tactic can enable the appellate panel of judges to provide an extremely unfair, unethical, and grossly irresponsible response to the Appellant's Appeal Brief argument issues. This frequently used judicial tactic can easily enable appellate court judges to provide an extremely unfair, unethical and fraudulent appeal decision to make the case come out the way the judges want for benefit to members of the legal profession, rather than providing a fair and impartial appeal decision based upon the facts, evidence, and the controlling legal standards presented to the judges on appeal.
Claiming that appellate judges do not have time to write an opinion for each appeal is not a responsible answer; it is a self-serving excuse to continue with the extremely unfair appeal system that Lon has been subjected to for the past fifteen years. If the appellate court judges did their job in a fair and responsible manner, and ruled against unfair and /or unethical trial court actions in a fair and impartial manner, and if they properly reported unacceptable trial court judicial actions and behavior to a disciplinary review board, and if judges were disciplined responsibly whenever they failed to provide a fair and impartial judicial forum for the litigants, there would be a lot less appeals, and the appellate court judges would then have more time to write responsible appeal decisions.
Are the Judicial Systems So Corrupt That They Are a Form of Organized Crime?
Lon found that the appeal process is a self-serving mess of judicial corruption that enables and encourages unfair, unethical, and corrupt litigation actions in the trial courts because the trial attorneys can then makes more money (many thousands of dollars) by litigating appeal actions that would not have been needed if the trial court litigation had been conducted in a fair, impartial, and responsible manner. In essence, the combination of unfair, unethical judicial actions in the trial courts and the additional litigation expenses associated with the appeal process enables trial court attorneys to substantially increase their income from the litigation process (double, triple, etc. their income). It is important to understand that the attorneys involved with an appeal process, for the Appellant(s) or the Appellee(s), all get paid whether they win or lose the appeal for their client(s).
At this point in time, Lon considers an Affirmed, Per Curiam Affirmed appeal decision, with no legal opinion being provided, to be an outrageously unfair, unethical self-serving litigation strategy and tactic that appellate judges have adopted (given themselves) so they can control and manipulate the final outcome of any appeal process. Unfortunately, the PCA decision, without a written legal opinion for the appeal, automatically denies the appellant any reasonable opportunity to appeal that decision to a higher court (State Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court). A higher court will not review an appellate court decision that has no written opinion for the case. Without a written opinion, there is no opinion available for the higher court to review. Consequently, after going to a lot of trouble and expense to file two cases in the US Supreme Court, exposing extremely unfair and unethical judicial actions in the trial court and in the appeal court, Lon subsequently learned that the higher appellate court (federal or state) will not review an Affirmed, Per Curiam Affirmed decision that does not have a written opinion for the case. Consequently, Lon learned that the Affirmed, Per Curiam Affirmed appeal decision, with no written opinion for the case, can easily be an extremely unfair, unethical, and fraudulent outcome for an appeal, anytime the appellate panel of judges (usually three judges) mutually decide to manipulate the outcome of the appeal to suit their own objectives for the appeal decision.
Lon has conducted more than twelve appeals, and it is now clear that an Appellant will likely spend a lot of time and effort and thousands of dollars to present an appeal. Lon believes that the Appellant and the Appellee both deserve a responsible written opinion for their appeal that shows in reasonable detail what the legitimate legal basis was for the appeal decision rendered by the appellate court's panel of judges. This situation is exceptionally important when the appellate panel renders an Affirmed, Per Curiam Affirmed decision because the judges unanimously ruled against all of the appellant's argument issues. The appellant has usually gone to a lot of trouble and expense to present the appeal, and he/she certainly deserves to know the legitimate legal basis for the appellant panels decision to rule against each one of the appellant's specific argument issues.
Vital Need for Written Trial Court Decisions and Appellate Court Decisions
Lon is convinced that all trial court decisions and all appeal court decisions should be written to provide an adequate legal basis for each legal or factual issue adjudicated. Anything less than this basic requirement opens the judicial doors wide for judicial fraud against litigants and enables judges to easily perpetrate heinous judicial frauds upon the public trust. The extreme and outrageous level of unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions that Lon Willoughby has been subjected to in the distant state's courts, over a period of 15+ years, illustrates how abusive trial judges and appellate judges can be when they are allowed to operate with no effective oversight and no effective investigation actions regarding a litigant's complaints about unfair, unethical, and/or criminal-minded judicial actions in the trial court or in the appellate court.
The criminal-minded nature of the Affirmed, Per Curiam Affirmed appeal decision strategy is further shown by the fact that one cannot successfully appeal such a decision. As shown above, it is unwritten judicial policy for a higher level appellate court, including the Supreme Court of the United States, to always refuse to review any Affirmed, Per Curiam Affirmed decision that provided no written legal opinion.
This extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded judicial strategy works this way. When the appeal decision fails to provide a written legal opinion, it automatically prevents the higher level appellate court from having a legal opinion to review. Consequently, the higher level appellate court cannot have a legal basis to disagree with the lower appellate court's legal basis for their decision because that appellate panel did not identify the legal basis for their appeal decision.
Extensive legal research by Lon showed that Affirmed, Per Curiam Affirmed decisions, with no legal opinion being provided, are routine practice in appellate courts. Lon believes that this judicial tactic (scheme) can be used in a self-serving manner by appellate court' judges any time they mutually agree to manipulate the outcome of an appeal case, contrary to the evidence in the appeal case and/or contrary to the controlling legal standards for the issues in dispute for the appeal. In other words, Lon learned that appellate court judges can easily corrupt the outcome of any appeal to an extreme degree any time they choose to do so. Lon believes this is self-serving judicial corruption at its worst; his extensive legal research (thousands of hours) found that this type of appeal decision is routine common practice in appellate courts.
The situations reported herein illustrate the extremely unfair, unethical, self-serving criminal-minded fraud that can easily be perpetrated upon a trusting public by courts in the United States, any time judges decided to manipulate the outcome of cases to suit their objectives (trial courts and/or appellate courts) - irrespective of the valid evidence presented in the case and/or irrespective of the relevant controlling legal standards presented by the litigants regarding the issues in dispute.
It is self-evident that American citizens want to believe, and have a legitimate right to believe, that trial court judges and appellate court judges will provide a reasonably fair and impartial judicial forum for resolution of all litigation dispute issues. The public-at-large clearly expects said judges to responsibly search for the truth regarding each case, civil or criminal, and then dispense justice in fair and reasonable compliance with relevant controlling and advisory legal standards.
Judges take an oath of office which essentially affirms that they will accomplish their adjudication duties in a fair, impartial, and responsible judicial manner. Lon's extensive legal experiences and extensive legal research convinced him that judges can casually ignore their oath of office and violate their sacred public trust any time they choose to do so - with impunity from responsible and fair-minded investigation and prosecution. Ask yourself this question: Who is going to investigate and then prosecute unfair, unethical, fraudulent judicial actions by judges and the "local" attorneys who cooperate with such self-serving judicial actions?
Lon's numerous appeals convinced him that this type of judicial corruption is common practice in the distant state's trial courts and appellate courts. Lon finally concluded reluctantly that their judicial system operates in such an extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt self-serving manner, any time it chooses to do so, that it should be considered a form of organized crime.
In many years of ongoing litigation, Lon Willoughby did not encounter any trial judge who provided a fair and impartial judicial forum for Lon to present his litigation issues (in the distant state courts or the federal court located in the distant state). Lon was appalled, disgusted, and dismayed by the extreme prejudice that judges held toward him, proceeding pro se, each time that Lon exposed any of the unfair, unethical judicial actions that had been taken against him by a former judge (recused/removed from the case - due to demonstrated unfair, unethical judicial actions against non-resident litigant Lon Willoughby).
Due to his extensive pro se litigation experience, as reported briefly herein, Lon is convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the judicial systems in America (state courts and federal court systems) can easily operate in an extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt manner, any time they choose to do so. This situation can occur any time the "opposing" trial attorneys (officers of the court) and the trial judge (officer of the court) collusively "cooperate with each other" to make a case come out the way they collectively choose to resolve the case (for their mutual self-serving benefits). In other words,
An attorney may reluctantly agree to cooperate with an unfair, unethical litigation scheme (against client) because the attorney understands that he should not irritate or upset the judge if he/she appears to be agreeable to said litigation scheme. The attorney may have to routinely practice law before this same judge, again and again, and it could severely damage the attorney's legal practice if he/she does not "go along to get along" as a good team player in the local legal brotherhood.
Lon learned that judges can easily rule against a party unfairly (civil trial) or convict an innocent person (criminal trial) any time the "opposing" attorneys collusively agree to go along with such an unfair, unethical, criminal scheme. Lon's extensive efforts to expose such corrupt judicial actions convinced him that it is almost impossible to get a responsible investigation conducted, by any law enforcement agency, about unfair, unethical, criminal-minded judicial actions against a non-resident litigant, proceeding pro se of necessity.
Bench Trial or Jury Trial?
An unfair, unethical situation can very easily occur if the litigation will have a bench trial (the judge acts as the judge and the jury) rather than a jury trial. In the bench trial situation, the judge decides all issues of law and he also decides all issues regarding factual evidence. Consequently, it is very easy for the judge to manipulate the case and make it come out the way he wants it to come out unless the innocent party has a courageous lawyer who will aggressively protect the client's interest in a responsible manner. In many situations, the judge can rule against an innocent person in an unfair and unethical manner because the person's attorney is not willing to stand up against the judge's obvious bias to favor the opposing attorney or the attorney's client.
Subsequent events taught Lon that trial judges are allowed an almost unlimited amount of judicial authority and discretion about the evidence that can be admitted during a trial (affidavits, depositions, documents, interrogatories, pictures, business records, testimony, etc.). This is another situation that allows the trial judge to manipulate a jury trial, as well as a bench trial. The judge and the "opposing" trial attorneys can easily cause an innocent person to lose the case if the "opposing attorneys" collusively cooperate with the judge to produce this outcome for the case, even with a jury trial. How often can such an unfair, unethical trial occur?
Lon's extensive litigation experiences convinced him that this type of corrupt litigation can occur any time the judge will allow it - unless a litigant has a courageous lawyer with sufficient integrity to aggressively defend the client's interest from unfair, unethical judicial actions. Such "independent" lawyer actions can cause substantial personal risk for the lawyer's career and damage his/her reputation within the "local" bar association.
Consider this important scenario: How would an ordinary person find a courageous and ethical trial lawyer within the short 30 day period that is initially allowed to file a responsive pleading (Answer) after the Plaintiff's Complaint has been served upon the Defendant?
Lon learned that it is very important to select the right lawyer at the beginning of a litigation process. It can be expensive to change to a different lawyer months later because the new lawyer must also evaluate all of the litigation issues and then become familiar with all litigation actions that have occurred in the case. In essence, one would be paying almost double the amount needed to get to that point in the litigation process if the right attorney had been retained at the beginning of the litigation. In addition to this major cost issue, changing the lawyer usually requires approval of the judge assigned to the case. Consequently, a motion hearing is needed to accomplish this action and this will also cause more litigation expense.
Lon's litigation experiences convinced him that American courts (state or federal) do not routinely provide a fair and impartial judicial forum for resolving dispute issues whenever an ordinary individual is litigating against an "important" litigant, a government agent or agency, or an attorney for legal malpractice and/or fraud. In such situations, Lon believes that a litigant is not likely to find a trial attorney with the courage and integrity to aggressively present the litigant's case against such powerful adversaries.
The judicial systems in America are based upon a faith and trust that judges will always provide a fair and impartial judicial forum and will act in a competent and reasonable manner toward litigants. In essence, Lon found that the judicial systems can easily operate like a self-serving good ole' boys club any time the judge is inclined to show favoritism to a prosecutor, a particular trial attorney, or to an "important" litigant. Consequently, it is very important for a litigant to initially choose a lawyer that has sufficient courage and integrity to be willing to defend the client aggressively from abuse by unfair and unethical judicial actions. How would you locate one of these very special and very rare lawyers? Your best option is a PPL Provider Law Firm.
Pre-Paid Legal Services Can Help Improve the Integrity Within America's Judicial Systems
The situations reported above illustrate the great need for a company like Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. This remarkable company is headquartered in Ada, Oklahoma, near the center of America, and it specializes in providing a variety of very valuable legal services memberships. These memberships enable ordinary people to have much better access to quality legal services at more affordable costs.
Give some thought to this situation: If Lon could have found a courageous trial lawyer with sufficient integrity to help him defend himself in the distant state court during 1989, he would have won that case easily. That situation would have enabled Lon to avoid the great expense caused by many years of continued litigation in the trial courts and in the appellate court of the distant state. Lon could have avoided the substantial expense of time, diligent effort, and many thousands of dollars spent conducting twelve appeals in the distant state. Lon would have been able to avoid the great expenditure of time, effort and money that was necessary for Lon to present two cases to the Supreme Court of the United States.
He would also have avoided the great loss of potential income that occurred due to the many years of ongoing litigation actions in the distant state's courts when Lon was unable to hold any job due to the severe constraints on his time schedule. He never knew when he would be able to go to work because that situation could change any day if he received another legal document in the mail, requiring him to immediately begin legal research to prepare another responsive legal brief, or he was required to make another automobile trip to the distant state. At this point in time, Lon has lost in excess of $600,000 in potential income due to the many years of ongoing litigation actions. This illustrates the extortion racket that is a part of this corrupt judicial process - the litigant will pay whatever his attorney demands or they can easily be subjected to many years of very expensive litigation, as was done with Lon.
Lon Willoughby is still trying to find a responsible way to expose the extremely unfair, unethical self-serving nature of the judicial systems that he is still being subjected after many years of litigation. Lon was repeatedly subjected to ruthless and malicious harassment, intimidation, coersion, and persecution by a series of unfair, unethical, and corrupt-minded judges since 1989. Consequently, Lon can easily see the great need for the Provider Law Firm concept that has been established by PrePaid Legal Services.
The PPL Family Membership plan that is available today, with Provider Law Firm support, was not available to Lon Willoughby in 1989 and for many years thereafter. If Lon could have had gotten a PPL provider law firm staff attorney to represent him in the 1989 litigation, he would likely have avoided the very expensive and frustrating experiences reported herein. As you can see from Lon's extensive litigation experiences, having access to the current PPL Provider Law Firm type membership could have made a tremendous difference in Lon's life.
He understands that Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. has made tremendous progress in recent years and can provide much better access to competent legal services for its members than in the past Developing the provider law firm concept was a big advancement in this regard.
More Than One Million PPL Members and Growing Rapidly
As you probably know, there is substantial power associated with large numbers of people. It may surprise you to learn that there are more than one million members in our Pre-Paid Legal Services family in the United States and Canada. Some states have 20,000+ PPL members and some states have more than 50,000 members.
Many states have provider law firms that routinely provide many essential legal services to members throughout the state via 800 toll-free telephone lines. Members can call in and ask questions about any legal issue; this exceptionally valuable legal service is provided as a standard part of the monthly membership fee. The provider law firm can assist members in many different ways, including helping them locate good lawyers to represent them in a "local" court, wherever the member may live within a state.
As our PPL memberships continue to increase rapidly in number, our opportunities to help improve the "integrity" within the judicial systems also increase. This wonderful company helps its members locate quality legal services and trial lawyers who have substantial courage and integrity. Lon understands that the important benefits offered by a Pre-Paid Legal Services membership can provide exceptionally valuable services to members. He is hopeful that our rapidly growing membership actions in hundreds of courts across America and Canada will help us move closer to the ultimate goal of fair and impartial justice for all in the courts of America and Canada.
Free Online Resource Center
As a member of PPL, you can enjoy the benefits that your membership contract provides for your state. In addition, members can also have Internet access to an Online Resource Center that can provide information on many important subjects. This is a valuable feature of the membership because it enables members to obtain important information and/or documents that may be needed to help resolve various issues. Members can also get Free legal contracts, documents, and legal forms to help them accomplish their objectives.
In many situations, a member can obtain information that is relevant to a specific State by simply identifying the State that is applicable to the member's subject-matter inquiry. A member can also obtain access to many government documents and forms for individual States, the United States, and Canada. PPL members can access this comprehensive Resource Center any time they choose, day or night, and a member has free and unlimited access to this resource information service, through the web site provided by Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. (see the www.PrepaidLegal.com links on the next page).
As a member of Prepaid Legal Services, you can enjoy the benefits that your membership contract provides for your state. In addition, members can also have Internet access to an Internet Resource Center that can provide information on many important subjects. This is a valuable feature of the membership because it enables members to obtain important information and/or documents that may be needed to help them understand some of the legal issues involved with their situation(s). Members can also get legal contracts, documents, and legal forms to help them accomplish their objectives.
Membership Benefits and Features
For less than 90 cents a day, you and your family can have attorneys working for you, wherever you need attorney services, and this service is available to you Nationwide! A membership will provide a broad range of benefits and services but variations exist in different states. Some highlights of the $26.00 per month Family Membership available in South Carolina are listed below:
- Will preparation initially and then annual updates if needed
- Unlimited Toll-Free Consultations with an Attorney at a PPL provider law firm
- Attorney Letters and Phone Calls made on your behalf by PPL provider law firm
- Contracts and Documents reviewed by an attorney (up to 10 pages in length)
- Moving Traffic Violations - attorney services provided (teenage drivers included)
- Trial Defense - attorney services per schedule of hour
- IRS Audit - tax attorney defense services per schedule of hours
Many legal issues are covered by your membership, but you can also get substantial discounts on the cost of attorney fees for issues that are not covered issues such as: Separation, Divorce, Child Custody, Bankruptcy, Garnishment of Wages, non-work-related Criminal type litigation, and a few other special situations.
You can learn about important concepts contained in a typical membership by visiting our special Internet site for information about Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. The link to this sophisticated Website is provided below.
The Website will enable you to watch a Movie that is about six minutes long, or you may choose to see an HTML Presentation. PPL offers memberships for people in different categories such as individuals, families, schoolteachers, policemen, commercial drivers, businesses, etc. All types of memberships are not available in all states; however, you can contact ABC to obtain additional information about the membership that is most appropriate for your personal situation.
After you view the Movie or HTML Presentation, you can E-mail ABC with questions or comments about this membership service while you are still connected to the linked PPL Website. You my also use your Back control to come back to this ABC Website and then use the convenient E-mail link to communicate with ABC.
Begin your visit of our PPL information Website and view the Movie or the HTML Presentation by clicking on the PrePaidLegal link below. This link will connect you to ABC's Pre-Paid Legal Service information (info) Website. Please note that you can review any of the membership programs available in a state by using your mouse to select Step 3: You can enroll.
You will then be prompted to select the state where you live. This selection will automatically bring up the membership plans available in your state. You can review features and benefits and review the monthly cost of each membership plan.
If you want to start your PPL membership, please know that you have an adaptable contract arrangement in that you can terminate a membership contract by simply giving the company written notice of your desire to terminate. You will not be locked in to a long-term commitment. This is a win-win situation, so take your time and check it out. Please make notes of any questions that come to mind and then E-mail ABC for answers to your questions. You and your family can have attorneys working for you, wherever you need attorney services, and this service is available to you Nationwide!
Thank you for visiting the Justice section of our Website. Lon Willoughby knows how to help you learn more about protecting yourself in an extremely litigious society. As stated previously, the average adult in America is much more likely to need legal services than to need hospital care during any 12 months period of time. How would you try to cope with such situations? How can you defend yourself at affordable costs? Please think about these situations, view the PPL presentations available herein, and then take appropriate actions to obtain your PPL membership as quickly as possible.
Each day that you are actively involved with life usually present | |
