Justice and Legal Shield Info

Justice and Legal Shield Info

Judicial Corruption Exposed - Very Important Info



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 an average 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?  

Take time to consider for a few moments the first actions you would take if you learned that you were the victim of credit card theft?  Do you have a very competent law firm who would help you understand what actions you should quickly take to minimize your financial damages?

This information may be very important to your future so please take a few minutes to read this revealing report about the extreme corruption that is commonplace in some judicial systems (hopefully not all of them - but it was all of them that Lon Willoughby encountered in numerous trial courts and numerous appellate courts over a 20+ years period of ongoing litigation - that was related to the initial judicial corruption that had occurred in year 1989).  Lon's report presents Judicial Information that Is very important.

His report exposes litigation schemes and tactics that were used against him to cause unfair and unethical litigation with unfair and unethical trial court judges.  They repeatedly allowed and willingly cooperated with unfair and unethical litigation schemes and tactics involving criminal-minded litigation schemes to carry out their unfair and unethical litigation actions

Lon's report exposes unfair and unethical appellate courts and appellate court judges and some of their unfair and unethical judicial schemes and tactics Lon's report exposes outrageously unfair, unethical, and corrupt self-serving litigation actions by attorneys, judges, and a state prosecutor. 

As a result of his extensive litigation experiences, Lon suggests that "qualified visitors" should be very careful when they travel out of the county that they live in.  He suggests that they should be especially careful if they travel out of the state that they live in. 

It can be very expensive and very time consuming and very frustrating to get involved in litigation in a distant state's self-serving corrupt judicial system!!! 

Lon has spent more than 18,000 hours of his life trying to cope effectively with unfair, unethical, and corrupt litigation actions.  That is equivalent to more than seven years of difficult and frustrating and very stressful work, working 40 hours per week. 

He has had to travel more than 9,000 miles in his personal automobile attending litigation actions in a distant southern state.  That is the equivalent of driving from his home in Greenville County South Carolina to San Francisco in California, and back to his home, and then back to San Francisco again, 

All of his diligent and expensive efforts, costing him more than $440,000 in direct costs and lost income, was a total waste of time and money due to the extreme and outrageous amount of unfair, unethical, and corrupt litigation actions by trial court and appeal attorneys, trial court judges, and appellate court judges (state court levels and federal court levels).

Lon found that the self-serving actions of attorneys and judges had corrupted the law enforcement systems in America so much that he could not get anyone in law enforcement at the state level or the federal level (the FBI) to take any responsible actions to investigate his well-documented and reported incidents of some of that judicial abuse.

You need to understand that members of the legal profession are in control of most serious criminal investigative actions and ALL PROSECUTORIAL ACTIONS.  Consequently, it is most unlikely that such abusive litigation actions by attorneys or lawyers and judge will be investigated and prosecuted in a fair and impartial manner for any ordinary American citizen.  That is how TOTALLY CORRUPT the judicial systems can be in a SELF-SERVING MANNER anytime THEY choose to conduct litigation actions in an extremely unfair and unethical and corrupt manner.  

As a result of that excessive litigation abuse, wrecking Lon's life and his self-employed business for 20+ years, severely damaging his marriage and his family relationships with his two adult sons and numerous close relatives, Lon and his wife Janie have developed an entirely new kind of education business named Americans4Justice

You can read about this exciting new education type business at our introductory education website. A really exciting feature in this new education business is that patriotic-minded natural-born American adult citizens may be able to "qualify" to easily earn substantial amounts of affiliate referral awards (commission income) by simply helping this business find qualified prospects who then choose to join our Americans4Justice private education membership club


Introduction to Lon's True Short Story About

Judicial Corruption in American Courts

The founder and president of ABC's of Health, Inc., Lonnie Willoughby, Jr,, has had a lot of experience with courts within the USA. This ongoing litigation process was related to the outrageously unfair, unethical, and corrupt manner in which Lon's deceased father's estate was litigated during a beneficiary dispute in 1989.

Lon Willoughby, as a non-resident co-trustee defendant, was repeatedly abused and persecuted severely in a malicious and ruthless manner by extremely unfair and unethical judicial actions in a distant southern state - several hundred miles away from his home in Greenville County, South Carolina. 

When Lon responsibly reported those unfair, unethical, corrupt and criminal-minded judicial actions, schemes, and tactics in his pro se legal briefs, in the state's trial court and then in the state's appellate court, he was repeatedly abused and persecuted by a successive series of trial court judges and then appellate court judges. 

That malicious and ruthless harassment litigation continued for more than 20 years until Lon finally refused to waste any more of his life litigating in that state's unfair and unethical corrupt self-serving courts. 

He personally filed and prosecuted more than ten appeals during those years pro se (without attorney assistance), and he found that appellate court judges could be just as unfair and unethical and just as corruptly self-serving as the trial court judges below. 

On one of his early appeals, the appellate court judges (three judge panel) struck his appeal brief entirely because it reported unfair and unethical attorney actions and judicial actions in the trial court below. 

He was ordered to file another appeal brief that did not make any complaints about attorneys or judges in the trial court below.  His appeal brief reported five major areas where the trial court judge had erred in his judgment against co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby.

     When Appellant Lon Willoughby, Jr. filed his revised appeal brief, it toned down the accusatory language somewhat, but it still contained truthful information about the unfair and unethical actions by the attorney and the trial court judge because that was what the appeal was about - those actions and how they had willfully prevented a fair and impartial judicial forum for defendant co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. in the trial court below. 

     The appellate court judges struck two of the revised five argument issues in Appellant Lonnie Willoughby, Jr's Amended Initial Brief.  There was no legitimate basis for those judicial actions - to strike two very important argument issues in said appeal brief.

The appellate court judges gave no explanation of any kind as to why they decided to strike two of Appellate Lonnie Willoughby's very competent appeal argument issues. 

     Needless to say, Appellant Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. lost the appeal with this unfair and unethical self-serving corrupt appellate panel of three judges.  They wouldn't even consider reviewing the two stricken appeal argument issues, and  they then punished Appellant Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. (severely - as much as they could) for having honestly and responsibly reported on appeal the unfair and unethical attorney actions and trial judge judicial actions that occurred in the trial court below. 

     Once again, Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. saw how unfair and unethical the appellate court judges could be in a very selfish self-serving manner that directly "protected" extremely unfair and unethical members of the "legal brotherhood."  The Affirmed, Per Curiam decision rendered, with no written legal opinion, automatically denied Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. any opportunity to Petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review this extremely unfair and unethical appeal court decision.

     Lonnie Willoughby wanted to expose this outrageously unfair and unethical corrupt criminal-minded appellate court decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, but by this time he had learned that an Affirmed, Per Curiam decision with no written opinion has zero chance of being heard (reviewed) in the high court. 

     Furthermore, Lon Jr. also knew that it would be a lot of trouble and work and expense to appeal that appellate court judgment to the high court.  Since there was no chance of getting the case heard in the high court, he did not attempt to petition the high court to review that extremely unfair and unethical appellate court decision. 

The appellate court judges had used their Ace of Spades judicial tactic, the tactic of not writing a legal opinion that explained their judicial reason or reasons for ruling against all of Appellant Lonnie Willoughby, Jr's argument issues on appeal.

After That Appeal Decision,
The Unfair, Unethical and Corrupt Litigation Continued

     Lon Willoughby continued litigating in those corrupt state courts, and the obviously harassment, persecution, and malicious and ruthless punishment type litigation processes continued for many more years.  Numerous trial court judges were involved during the 20+ years of litigation.  Each one of the judges involved did anything possible to prevent defendant Lon Willoughby, Jr. from winning his legal arguments against an extremely unfair and unethical attorney (legal malpractice, deceit, and fraud against non-resident litigant Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. in 1989).

     A successive series of unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded self-serving corrupt "local" judges repeatedly cooperated with any unfair and unethical legal schemes and tactics that the corrupt law firm's attorney could concoct to be used against non-resident defendant Lonnie Willoughby, Jr.  

     Trial court judges in the distant state repeatedly corrupted the litigation process for benefit of the local attorney that Lon Willoughby, Jr. was trying to prosecute in an ethical and responsible manner for legal malpractice, deceit, and fraud.  This was the same attorney that had knowingly and willfully betrayed his client, Co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr., during the initial civil equity court litigation in September 1989.

No Shipments From ABC of Health
To People In Other States

     As a result of the extremely frustrating and stressful and expensive litigation actions reported briefly herein, as president of
ABC's of Health, Incorporated, Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. made a decision to avoid the potential for corrupt "local" attorneys and corrupt "local" judges in some distant state to have any opportunity to get ABC's of Health, Inc. involved in a judicial system that can be corrupted very easily by such "officers of the court

     Lon understands that simply shipping products to people in other states, or performing healthcare consultation services by telephone with people in other states, can open the door for a legal liability litigation action in any state involved,and this is  especially so if the state has a "long arm statute" in their statutory law arsenal..

     Lon's personal litigation experiences have shown that such situations can be manipulated easily by "local" attorneys and the "local" judge in a distant state.  Such litigation can then continue for many years (as the local attorneys involved and the local judge "milk the case" for maximum funds and expenses for ABC's of Health, Inc.).

     Lon understands that litigation in a distant state can easily cause exorbitant costs for ABC's of Health, Inc., even though ABC of Health has done nothing wrong regarding a shipment of nutrition products into a distant state.

     Lon's extensive legal system experiences over 20+ years have shown that unfair and unethical judicial conditions can likely occur in any state in America, as explained later in this department in Lon's Short Story
.  Consequently, ABC of Health avoided such potential legal dangers for many years by only shipping products, and only providing healthcare education services and healthcare consultation services, to people who are established residents of the upstate area of South Carolina.  This kept the legal liabilities closer to home for ABC's of Health, Inc. 

     Our ABC of Health personnel truly regret that the judicial systems in America can be so disgustingly unfair, unethical, selfish and self-serving and so easily corrupted, but Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. knows well, from his extensive litigation experiences, that this is the way it can easily be in state and federal courts within the United States of America (and that includes the State of South Carolina).

     Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. has also litigated in this state's courts (SC), and he found that circuit court judges also acted in an arrogant elitist unfair and unethical despotic and dictatorial self-serving manner whenever they had any personal interest in the outcome of the case. 

     Lon has diligently worked to expose the appalling and disgusting corrupt self-serving manner in which "officers of the court" routinely conducted litigation actions against litigant Lonnie Willoughby Jr. in the distant state (beginning in 1989 and continuing for 20+ years of related litigation actions). 

     Every judge involved (several trial courts judges and numerous appellate court judges - in the state courts and in the federal courts) repeatedly refused to take any responsible judicial actions to help initiate appropriate criminal type investigations of the extremely unfair, unethical, conniving, criminal-minded litigation schemes and tactics used in a self-serving manner against Lonnie Willoughby by "local" attorneys and "local" judges working in the distant state.  

     For 20+ years, Lon had to defend himself Sui juris pro se against extremely unfair, unethical, and outrageously corrupt judicial actions by five circuit court judges and two county court judges in a distant state, and in numerous appeal cases (10+ appeals) that were also usually conducted in an unfair and unethical self-serving manner by elitist appellate court judges (three judges per appeal panel of judges).

Sui juris pro se:  a mentally competent adult

litigating without an attorney

     Initially, in the spring of 1989, defendant Co-trustee Lonnie E. Willoughby, Jr., living in Greenville County, South Carolina, had to retain an attorney in a distant southern state to represent him in some trust estate dispute litigation (year 1989) that was initiated in the distant state by a beneficiary of a trust estate set up by Lon's deceased father, Lonnie Willoughby, Sr.  (He and his wife were long-time residents of the distant state - he died in November 1986).  

     Lon's "defense attorney" was a prominent attorney in that town, with 22 years of attorney experience in the distant state.  However, he subsequently betrayed Co-trustee Lon Willoughby's litigation interest in several ways in a heinous unfair and unethical litigation scheme that was concocted by the plaintiff's attorney.

     That scheme was used to ambush Defendant co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. (Lon Jr.) in the litigation by introducing five surprise complaints against him after the one-day civil non-jury equity court trial was in progress.  

     Because those were five surprise complaint issues, about complex estate planning and federal estate taxation issues, Defendant Co-trustee Willoughby was willfully denied fundamental due process of law standards for a fair and reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery actions and prepare his defenses against those five false surprise complaint issues.  

     Co-trustee Lon Willoughby understood that the two "local" attorneys knew each other well and had in fact worked in the same law firm office previously.  However, Lon subsequently discovered that his defense attorney "deceitfully cooperated" with the opposing plaintiff's attorney during the litigation process (before trial, during the trial, and after the trial had been conducted).

     Lon subsequently learned that the plaintiff's attorney's heinous litigation scheme intended to unfairly, unethically, and corruptly defeat non-resident litigant co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. in the trial court litigation.  The plaintiff's attorney obviously understood that the plaintiff did not have any legitimate complaints against the family member co-trustee that she had sued - in a very selfish scheming effort to force him to agree to pay her more money monthly from the trust's monthly income. 

     Co-trustee Lon Jr. had not agreed to pay her the amount of monthly income that she had demanded, and she was using the lawsuit to harass Lon Jr. into giving in to her demands.

     It is now very clear that co-trustee Lon Jr's "defense attorney" and the trial court's circuit court judge willingly "cooperated" with the unfair and unethical "ambush complaints scheme."  The judge ruled against Co-trustee Lon Willoughby on three of the five surprise complaint issues. 

     The judge ruled in Defendant Co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby Jr's favor on the two original complaint issues presented in the plaintiff's pleadings (the Complaint).  That situation proved that there was no legitimate basis for the two original complaints that the plaintiff's attorney had filed against co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr.  If there had been no surprise complaint issues allowed in the case, co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. would have won the case. 

     The trial court judge had about nine years experience as a judge, and he knew, or should have known, that the Supreme Court of that state had made a very important precedent setting benchmark litigation decision years before that was relevant to this one-day trial.  The Supreme Court decision specifically prohibited surprise complaint issues being raised during trial without agreement of the parties. 

     Complaint issues were supposed to be presented in the plaintiff's pleadings (the Complaint) and those specified pleaded issues are the only issues that can legitimately be litigated during the trial that occurs later.  

     This situation is absolutely necessary to provide the defendant with a fair and reasonable opportunity to prepare any responsible defenses that he may have for each pleaded complaint issue prior to the trial. 

     The defendant also has a right to conduct and complete discovery actions prior to the trial, to discover evidence about each of the pleaded complaint issues well ahead of the trial date.  Obviously, these discovery conditions cannot be conducted fairly and responsibly if some of the plaintiff's complaint issues are not identified to the defendant until the trial is in progress (being conducted). 

     The unfair and unethical ambush surprise complaints scheme was used by the unfair unethical and corrupt judge to cause Co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. to lose the civil litigation case (a circuit court - equity court case). 

     The case should have been easy for Lon Jr's very intelligent and well-experienced "defense attorney" to win - if the trial had been conducted in a fair and responsible manner, respecting and complying with the controlling legal standards relevant to the plaintiff's attorney's devious scheme to introduce five false surprise ambush type complaints after the trial was in progress. 

     The two opposing attorneys and the judge surely knew about the landmark benchmark decision established many years earlier by the state's Supreme Court panel of judges.  

     Lon Willoughby subsequently realized that his defense attorney had knowingly and willfully "cooperated" with the plaintiff attorney's heinous ambush surprise complaints scheme.  

     The big question is why would co-trustee Lon Jr's defense attorney violate basic trial court ethics and cooperate with that ambush scheme?  And why did an experienced circuit court judge allow that ambush scheme to occur in his court room, and why did the circuit court judge willingly "cooperate" with that extremely unfair ambush complaints scheme?

     It appears that they were determined to retaliate against co-trustee Lon Willoughby, Jr. and punish him ruthlessly and maliciously because he had helped his aging parents develop and establish a very good Amended Trust Estate plan (that had also made it possible to minimize probate litigation expenses in the local court system when Lon's father died on November 22, 1986).

     Some time after the trial was over and the Final Judgment had been rendered, Lon needed to appeal the obviously unfair and unethical Final Judgment.  Generally, one would want their trial attorney to represent them in the appeal process because they were already intimately familiar with all of the details involved in the case. 

     However, in this situation, Lon Jr. could not trust his "defense attorney" at all so he had no reasonable choice but to fire his "defense attorney" (due to his extremely unethical betrayal actions). 

     Lon then had to quickly find and retain a second attorney to present Lon's appeal case regarding the outrageously unfair and unethical Final Judgment decision that had been rendered by the circuit court judge below. 

     It is important to understand that an Appeal Case generally cost several thousand dollars for attorney fees plus several hundred dollars for filing fees and several hundred dollars for the preparation of the "Record on Appeal" for the appellate court judges to have available to review - all relevant court records from the trial court case below. 

     An appeal is generally a very complex process documentary process - providing a detailed written report of what went on in the trial court that was not appropriate judicial procedure - specifying exactly what went wrong.

     Lon managed to timely hire an appeal attorney to represent him in the appeal case - located in the distant city where the appellate court was located.  Lon subsequently learned that his appeal attorney was also "cooperating" with the opposition attorney's plan to unfairly and unethically defeat Appellant Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. in the appeal litigation. 

     Lon's appeal attorney refused to report in Lon's Initial Brief the obvious unfair and unethical criminal-minded "cooperation" (conspiracy) that occurred in the trial court litigation between the plaintiff's attorney, the trial court judge, and the "defense attorney" for defendant Co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr.  

    The appeal attorney failed to report on appeal how Co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. had been ambushed during the trial with surprise complaints.  He failed to report that the CPA witness was not an expert witness and his testimony was not admissible for that reason. 

     The Final Judgment showed that the CPA's testimony had been used by the trial court judge to rule against co-trustee Lon Willoughby, Jr. on three of the five surprise complaint issues. 

     Co-trustee Lon Jr. had given competent and responsible testimony about the five surprise complaint issues from memory that was almost four years old.  Fortunately, he was able to remembered that very important information

     The very biased and unfair corrupt trial court judge "chose" to believe the CPA's "non-expert" improper and incorrect opinions about complex estate planning issues that the CPA had testified about, saying "I think so."

     Lon was thereby forced to also fire his appeal attorney after Lon finally realized the betrayal that was taking place in the appeal process.  It was now clear that Lon's appeal attorney was actually "cooperating" with the opposing attorney to cause Appellant Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. to lose the appeal.  Unfortunately, at that point in time, the appellee's appeal brief had been filed. 

     Appellant Lonnie Willoughby, Jr., was now litigating pro se (without assistance of legal counsel), and he promptly tried to get the appellate court to allow him to amend the Initial Appeal Brief argument issues that had been filed by his appeal attorney. 

     However, the appellate court refused to allow Lon to report any new issues on appeal because the opposing attorney (the plaintiff's unfair, unethical, deceitful attorney) had already filed an Appellee's Reply Brief to Appellant Lon Willoughby, Jr's Initial Brief

     Lon Jr. had initially reviewed the first draft of the Initial Brief, and he was very disappointed in the argument issues presented in the appeal brief.  Lon Jr. realized that his appeal attorney had written (drafted) the appeal brief in such a way that it was most unlikely that Appellant Lon Jr. could win the appeal with that Initial Brief - it looked like the appeal attorney was actually trying to help cause Lon Jr. to lose the appeal. 

     Lon Jr. then made several proposed changes for the Initial Brief that could have improved the Initial Brief substantially, but Lon's appeal attorney refused to make the recommended changes before he went ahead and filed the Initial Brief with the appellate court and mailed a copy of said Initial Brief to the opposing party (the plaintiff's unfair, unethical, and obviously corrupt attorney).

     The opposing attorney quickly filed a Reply Brief to the Appellant's Initial Brief that had been prepared by Lon Jr's appeal attorney.

     The litigation tactics used in that situation (by the two "opposing" attorneys and then the appellate court judges) prevented Appellant Lon Willoughby from having a fair opportunity to expose on appeal the extremely unfair and unethical judicial corruption that had occurred in the trial court below. 

     Lon's appeal attorney had refused to report that situation in the appeal's Initial Brief that he had drafted and filed in the case for Appellant Willoughby, contrary to Lon's specific request that he report the rather obvious unfair and unethical collusive trial court actions that were reported in the 267 page trial transcript - part of the large Record on Appeal.

     The transcript clearly showed that a very unfair and unethical litigation scheme was used to ambush co-trustee Lon Willoughby, Jr. during trial with surprise (ambush) complaints. 

     The appeal attorney failed to cite and used the Supreme Court's landmark decision that strictly prohibited surprise complaints during the trial process - the most important case citation for Lon's appeal.

     However, Lon Willoughby did not discover that very important case until many months later, with his ongoing legal research, after that first appeal briefs had been filed.

    The Affirmed, Per Curium decision subsequently rendered for Lon's first appeal, with no written legal opinion being provided, was an extremely unfair and unethical appeal decision. 

     Lon did not know it at that time, but that decision ensured that any efforts made by Lon Willoughby, Jr. to have a higher court review this appeal decision would be ignored because the appeal judges had cleverly refused to write a legal opinion for their appeal decision.  

    Several years later, Lon finally learned that an appeal decision with no written legal opinion will automatically be ignored by a higher reviewing appellate court (the U.S. Supreme Court) because the appellate panel of three judges chose to not provide a legal opinion for the reviewing court to "review." 

    This is an extremely unfair and unreasonable judicial tactic that appeal judges have established for their own tactical use. They can easily prevent any abused appellant from getting an unfair, unjust, or outrageously corrupt appeal decision reviewed by a higher court (the Supreme Court of the United States). 

     In this extremely unfair and unethical appeal court decision, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively "cooperated" with this extremely unfair appeal court tactic by simply refusing to hear Lon's very important case on appeal to the high court.  

     After Lon lost the appeal case, he talked with several other attorneys in succession about the extreme unfair and unethical judicial actions involved, and how he wanted to sue the unfair, unethical, and corrupt attorneys involved in the prior litigation.  Each attorney quickly indicated that they would not get involved in any litigation of that type (they would not help Lon protect and defend himself from the unfair and unethical judicial actions that had occurred). 

     Over a period of several weeks of efforts to evaluate those litigation conditions, Lon reluctantly concluded that It is essentially impossible to obtain reliable and responsible attorney legal services that will help a severely abused litigant properly report and expose the outrageous level of unfair, unethical judicial corruption that had been used against Co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. in the distant state's trial court and appellate court litigation actions. 

     Lon learned that no "trial court attorney" wants to risk severely damaging his/her relationship with "local" trial court judges by helping a severely abused litigant expose unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions by a trial judge.

     Consequently, Lon Willoughby learned that he had no viable choices but (1) to give up and allow the corrupt attorney to get away with winning the case unfairly and corruptly that Co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. should have won easily in September 1989, or

(2) quickly try to learn how to represent himself in any future litigation actions in his Sui juris pro se capacity.  (become his own attorney in all future litigation actions)  

     Being determined to aggressively expose the extreme judicial corruption that had occurred and fight for justice in this very important situation, Lon chose to try to learn how to represent himself in all future related litigation actions.  

     While he was still striving to learn the fundamental complexities of litigation in federal courts, Lon Willoughby responsibly and timely initiated federal court litigation that would expose to a federal court judge (in the distant state) the outrageously unfair, unethical, criminal-minded judicial actions that had been taken against him (up to that time) in said state court litigation. 

     Lon's federal court civil action case sued the three corrupt attorneys in the distant state for deceit, fraud, and legal malpractice (both of the original trial court attorneys in September 1989 and also Lon's appeal case attorney).  

    The two federal trial court judges involved in that related litigation (magistrate judge and the chief federal judge) subsequently refused to take any judicial actions to initiate appropriate criminal investigations of the outrageously unfair, unethical, and corrupt criminal judicial actions that plaintiff Lon Willoughby exposed in his federal court case.

    The two judges effectively "cooperated" with the three defendant attorneys (and their individual attorneys) in any way possible to make it very difficult for plaintiff Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. to prosecute his complaint issues in an effective manner.  

    The federal court litigation was occurring at the time that defendant Lon Willoughby, Jr. was involved in the extremely unfair, unethical, and corrupt county court litigation that was occurring about 75 miles away from the federal court location.  

    Plaintiff Lon Willoughby, Jr. subsequently lost the federal trial court case because it was dismissed due to lack of prosecution by Plaintiff Lon Willoughby, Jr.  The county court's arrest warrants had prevented Lon Jr.from traveling into the distant state to prosecute his federal civil action case against the three corrupt attorneys. 

    The two federal court judges (a magistrate judge and a circuit court judge) had fully "cooperated" with the unfair, unethical, and corrupt litigation schemes and tactics that were being used collusively by the FDA and the county court judge to prevent non-resident plaintiff Lon Willoughby, Jr.from being able to travel into the distant state.

    He properly and timely appealed the extremely unfair ruling of the federal trial court judge (the chief judge of that federal circuit). Appellant Lon Willoughby's appeal briefs and the record on appeal exposed in substantial detail to the appellate court judges the unfair and unethical manner in which the federal court case had been conducted, making it essentially impossible for plaintiff Lon Willoughby to win the case (as he should have been able to do). 

    The federal appellate court judges subsequently ruled that they found nothing wrong with the actions of the federal trial court judge, and they specified in their ruling that this appeal case legal opinion should not be published (in the usual manner) - so the very important aspects of Lon's appeal would not be available for public review and education.  

    When it became clear to the state court judges that the federal trial court judges and the federal appellate court judges refused to take any responsible judicial actions to initiate appropriate criminal investigations of the clearly exposed unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded actions of the state's judicial system, the outrageous level of judicial corruption got much worse for non-resident defendant Lon Willoughby in the still ongoing litigation in the state trial court. 

    Lon was then subjected to many more years of heinous, malicious, and ruthless judicial persecution as a non-resident litigant.  He was treated with extreme prejudice as a foreigner in their courts even though Lon Willoughby is a natural born American citizen, served a four year tour of duty in the United States Air Force, and worked with the Federal Aviation Administration for nineteen years as an electronics systems specialist (a total of 23 years of federal service). 

     Lon was thereby forced into numerous appeals (10+) during a 20+ years long litigation process.  He found that appellate court judges (state and federal courts) could be just as conniving, deceitful, dishonest, and corrupt in a self-serving manner as the numerous trial court judges that Lon was subjected to during many years of related state court litigation actions in the distant state.    

     This Judicial Department provides Lon's short story about an outrageous level of judicial corruption that can operate at will anywhere in America simply because the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is too busy to get involved in investigating an ordinary citizen's complaints about extremely unfair, unethical, criminal-minded self-serving judicial corruption.

     State and federal trial court judges and appellate court judges apparently understand those situations - they understood that they can get away with any kind of unfair and unethical judicial corruption that they choose to allow. 

     Lon's diligent 20+ years of defensive litigation actions have proven convincingly, beyond a reasonable doubt, that his very serious complaints about judicial corruption were casually ignored by all of the government agencies contacted (appropriate state agencies and appropriate federal government agencies - judges and the FBI).  

     Lon's extensive litigation actions have shown that an extremely unfair, dishonest, and outrageously corrupt trial court judge, or a series of such judges, can get away with unfair, unethical, and illegal judicial actions simply because it is essentially impossible for an ordinary American to get any law enforcement agency (state or federal) to investigate valid, responsible, well-documented complaints about extremely unfair, unethical, illegal, and corrupt judicial actions that are conducted in a collusive criminal-minded manner by trial attorneys and trial court judges.

     Attorneys and judges apparently understand that the severely harassed and persecuted victims of such corrupt judicial actions (trial courts and appellate courts) usually have no viable way of defending themselves in those situations because it is most unlikely that any state law enforcement agency or any federal law enforcement agency will investigate a litigant's serious complaints about extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded corrupt judicial actions. 

     With two visits to the appropriate FBI office in the distant state, and with several contacts with the FBI in South Carolina, Lon could not get any of the the FBI agents to make any effort at all to responsibly consider investigating Lon's very serious complaints about unfair, unethical, criminal-minded corrupt judicial actions in the distant state's courts.  

    The FBI personnel that Lon talked with on several occasions seemed to "believe" that the appellate courts can take care of those types of judicial complaint issues.  The FBI personnel did not want to consider that the appellate court judges can also be outrageously unfair, unethical, and corrupt in a self-serving manner - and thereby "cooperate" with the corrupt trial court judge's unfair, unethical criminal-minded judicial actions and decisions. 

     Unfortunately, Lon's 20+ years of ongoing litigation experiences proved convincingly that Americans effectively live in a "lawless" society with respect to unfair, unethical, and corrupt-minded judges (in state courts and in federal courts). 

     Over time, it became clear to Lon Willoughby that the FBI would not investigate his valid responsible complaints about unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded corrupt judicial actions in the distant state's trial court litigation that Lon had conducted Sui juris pro se, and the subsequent unfair, unethical, and corrupt cover-up actions taken by the federal trial court's magistrate and circuit court judges, and then the appellate court judges when Appellant Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. responsibly conducted a very important appeal action in the federal appellate court (also located in a distant state).   

     Consider this question:  Who is going to investigate and prosecute such complaints?  The State's "local" prosecuting attorney personnel can easily "cooperate" with the "local" judge and the "local" trial attorney(s) and essentially nothing will get done in a responsible fair-minded manner about a victimized litigant's competently written complaint reports, even when the complaint is supported by very strong documentary evidence and credible personal testimony.

     Lon's diligent actions in reporting such judicial corruption has involved reports to state trial court judges and state appellate court judges (both courts numerous times), state prosecuting attorneys, the state's attorney general, the state's governor, the FBI, and federal court judges and federal appellate court judges.  In essence, all of those reports were a huge waste of Lon's time, efforts, and expense (many thousands of hours and many thousands of dollars in trial court and appellate court litigation actions). 

     No responsible investigations were conducted about any of Lon's  responsible and competent complaints; consequently, no person was  prosecuted for the numerous unfair, unethical, criminal-minded judicial actions involved - corrupt trial court litigation actions, falsified litigation documents, falsified trial court orders and judgments, unfair, unethical appellate court orders and judgments (state and federal court litigation cases), numerous acts of mail fraud and wire fraud that were clearly serious federal crimes. 

     Numerous acts of criminal-minded collusion (conspiracies) were conducted against nonresident litigant Lonnie Willoughby to ruthlessly deny him fundamental due process of law standards in the trial courts involved, and those criminal-minded judicial actions continued month after month for more than twenty years during ongoing related litigation actions (in the state courts and/or the federal courts).

     A litigant's fundamental rights to due process of law standards during litigation actions are theoretically protected and secured by the Constitution of the United States and by the State's Constitution.

     However, Lon learned by numerous situations that the judges involved simply ignored his constitutionally protected and secured rights.  In fact, several trial court judges ruthlessly and maliciously retaliated against litigant Lonnie Willoughby because he had dutifully and responsibly reported in his trial court legal briefs, and subsequently in numerous appeal legal briefs (filed Sui juris pro se), some of the extremely unfair, unethical, and outrageously corrupt judicial actions that had been taken against him. 

     No judicial actions were taken by any of the trial judges or appellate court judges involved in Lon's litigation cases to initiate an appropriate responsible investigation of the unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded judicial actions that had been taken against Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. (and reported responsibly in Lon's legal briefs that were filed by him in his pro se capacity.

     Those situations occurred again and again and again through numerous trial court actions and appeal cases, even though Lon made detailed reports about those actions on appeal and presented solid documentary evidence in the Record on Appeal to support his argument issues on appeal (argument issues in his Initial Brief for each appeal). 

     Lon Willoughby has proven conclusively, with his 20+ years of litigation actions exposing judicial corruption, and with numerous appeals in state courts, and with two appeal cases to the Supreme Court of the United States, that it is essentially impossible for an ordinary citizen to be able to defend himself or herself against such o

     The nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court essentially ignored Lon's responsible well-documented appeal actions that clearly exposed an outrageous level of unfair, unethical criminal-minded judicial actions in the courts below. 

     (1) Please read Lon's short story about Justice in America, as presented below (it is about 15 pages long), and then give very serious consideration to becoming a member of the Legal Shied service plan that is offered herein.  We now have more than 1.5 million members, but we need a lot more members to have a substantial impact on improving the fairness and integrity of state court systems and federal court systems in America.

     Lon Willoughby's first appeal to the Supreme Court was about judicial corruption in the distant state's court system. 

     His second appeal to the high court was about unfair and unethical judicial decisions (corruption) in the federal court system.  The high court subsequently denied each of Lon's petition for a review of the case actions below (Petition for Writ of Certiorari). 

     Both of his petitions clearly exposed how the trial court judges and the appellate court judges below had conducted extremely unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded litigation actions against Co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. 

     As a result of those very frustrating and expensive experiences, Lon Willoughby will not waste any more of his time or money appealing to the U. S. Supreme Court.  He now has very good reasons to have no confidence or faith at all in any of the judicial systems in America.

     These introductory overview statements show that trial court judges within the United States of America can operate in an outrageously unfair and unethical manner any time individual trial court judges (state and federal courts) choose to allow unfair, unethical, and corrupt judicial actions to take place in their respective courts. 

     Lon Willoughby's extensive legal research, going back into the 1800's, discovered that judicial systems in America have been allowed to conduct judicial actions in an unfair, unethical, and corrupt "self-serving" manner for many years - longer than Lon has been alive (born in June 1936).

No More Travel for 
Lon Willoughby in America

The potential for judicial corruption is so great in American courts that Lon and his wife, Janie, will not travel outside of their home state of South Carolina.  Even though both of them are natural born American citizens, have college level degrees, and have served with distinction in their respective careers, they will not voluntarily travel across the state line of South Carolina into adjoining states for any reason.  

They have both learned that if one is forced into a litigation situation where they must try to defend themselves from unfair, unethical, and corrupt-minded trial court attorneys and judges, it is much better to be close to home within your home state than to get involved in litigation in some other state. 

In your home state, your political vote counts and it is important because you have state legislators who might be willing to take some responsible actions that could help you expose and eventually get an investigation made of your exposed unfair, unethical, criminal-minded judicial corruption.  You have no such opportunity in any distant state where you are a "foreigner."  Lon learned that his natural born citizenship in the USA had no value at all in another state.

When one is traveling to distant locations, the traveler may become subject to a litigation jurisdiction that is not close to their home county.  In such situations, the litigation will likely be much more awkward, cumbersome, difficult, and much more expensive to contend with than if a similar litigation was being conducted in one's home county. 

If the litigation is in a different state than the state the litigant lives in, the litigant may be at a tremendous disadvantage because the litigant is a nonresident of the distant state, and will likely be treated with extreme prejudice as a "foreigner" in the distant state's judicial system(s).  The "local" attorneys involved in the distant state litigation, and the "local" judge involved, will likely understand that the nonresident litigant is in a very vulnerable position that can be taken advantage of easily by the local "officers of the court" that become involved in the litigation process. 

Lon and Janie have learned that it very important to STAY CLOSE TO HOME and minimize these potential very serious legal dangers. They have also learned to MINIMIZE THEIR LIABILITIES as much as possible; consequently, they carefully minimize their potential for getting involved in any litigation of any kind anywhere. 

Lon's extensive litigation experiences (over 20+ years) has proven convincingly that any litigation action can cause a resident litigant, or a non-resident litigant, to be subjected to ruthless and malicious abuse by unfair and unethical "local" attorneys and "local" judges.  Lon's many litigation experiences found that trial court judges frequently have a ruthless sadistic nature that seems to enjoy causing great stress and frustration for litigants with expensive litigation actions.

What Can Responsible Americans 

Do About These Appalling and 

Disgusting Judicial Situations?


          (1) Carefully read all of this report and then share this information with people within your circle of influence (E-mail contacts and other contacts) by referring them to this Website and this Justice department. Your responsible 
actions in this regard will enable them to become informed about the real world of pompous elitist arrogant and self-serving unfair and unethical corruption that clearly exists within the judicial systems in America.  

Lon believes that every responsible American adult needs to learn about this grossly unacceptable situation because it makes traveling in America very risky for any non-elitist person (not a member of the self-appointed elitist arrogant and omnipotent "legal brotherhood").

As shown herein, traveling outside of one's home county can be very risky, and traveling outside of one's home state can be much riskier because the traveler will likely be prejudiced severely as a foreigner in another state's judicial system.

Lon found this type of abusive prejudice to be common (standard practice) with all judges encountered during 20+ years of ongoing related litigation actions (trial courts judges and appellate court judges - in the state courts and the federal courts). 

In fact, Lon Jr. found that trial court judges can be, and usually are, very opinionated based upon their preconceived prejudices about certain litigation issues, rather than being fair-minded and willing to carefully consider the valid evidence that is presented in the case.  In 20+ years of litigation actions, Lon Willoughby, Jr. did not encounter any trial court judge who was worthy of respect.

Lon Jr. was very disappointed in that sense with all of the judges that he encountered over 20+ years of litigation actions in the distant state.  He also found the same kind of unfair arrogant elitist "know it all" attitude with two circuit court judges that were involved in Lon's limited litigation in South Carolina courts.

         (2) Spend some time on the Internet reviewing these judicial corruption situations and you will find that there are numerous organizations across America that are trying to help expose an appalling and disgusting amount of judicial corruption.  Do a word search for judicial corruption and locate some of the "educational organizations" that are diligently striving to expose judicial corruption in American courts.  

NOTE:  One of the major keys to a more fair and honest judicial system is responsible actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI ).  

If FBI agents across America choose to not investigate unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded collusive actions of trial attorneys and judges (when an individual reports those actions to the FBI - as Lon has done several times), these appalling and disgusting unfair and unethical judicial corruption conditions will likely continue and will likely get worse in the future.   

       (3) Responsible Americans must join together and responsibly strive to get our elected representatives at the state level and the federal level to look at this terrible judicial situation and to pass some additional laws that can help protect litigants from unfair, unethical, corrupt judicial actions (similar to those judicial actions that Lon Willoughby, Jr. was subjected to for more than 20 years).  

Can the judicial situation in America really be that bad?  Read Lon's short story below to get an honest and responsible answer to this very important question.

+ + + + +

Lon's True Short Story About
Judicial Corruption in American Courts

Did you know that a trial judge can easily "allow" a civil or criminal litigation process to be conducted in an unfair, unethical, and corrupt manner if he or she chooses to do so, and the judge will likely get away with doing so if all parties in the litigation are represented by "local" attorneys?

Do you understand why it would be easy for unfair and unethical trial attorneys and trial judges to wreck your life emotionally and financially during civil or criminal litigation?  Do you naively believe that American trial judges and appellate court judges have a strong sense of fairness and integrity and always treat litigants fairly, impartially, and responsibly? 
It is reasonable to believe that there are many good attorneys, lawyers, and judges in America, but Lon Willoughby has seen and experienced a lot of clear factual evidence that there are also many unethical, greedy, self-serving attorneys, lawyers, and judges in America. 
As you may know, legal services can be very expensive.  The information presented in this department will show you how to obtain an exceptionally valuable low-cost membership that can help you cope with 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 - and they do occur sometimes.  
As shown in this very revealing expose' report, getting involved in litigation can be extremely risky because the "local" attorneys and "local" judge may be unfair and unethical and outrageously corrupt.  Lonnie Willoughby, Jr's extensive litigation experiences discovered that such judicial corruption happens far too often in American courts.  

Lon found that unfair and unethical judicial corruption can occur throughout the judicial systems - in state courts and in federal courts - and it can proceed in the appellate courts, and then go all the way up to and into the U.S. Supreme Court justices and their respective law clerks.

NOTE:  Website links are provided on the last page of this Justice Report to take you to the official company website for Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. (PPL) (now Legal Shield). 

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 or trial court judge.  
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.

Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. as president of ABC's of Health, Inc., doing business as (dba) ABC of Health became an Independent Representative of Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. in December of 1994. (PPL) This was a New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) traded company. 

Lonnie Willoughby, Jr., Founder and President of ABC's of Health, Inc., was born on June 5, 1936, a long time ago, and he has acquired considerable experience with litigation actions in state courts and federal courts, as reported herein. 

Lon was extremely busy, for more than 20 years, trying to defend and protect his constitutionally protected and secured freedoms and rights because those precious "protected and secured rights" were maliciously and ruthlessly violated by a series of corrupt attorneys and judges (trial court judges and appellate court judges) located in a distant southern state (about 500 miles away from Lon's home in Mauldin, South Carolina - about eight miles from downtown, Greenville, SC.  

Consequently, Lon has acquired enough legal experience to understand that Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. (now LegalShield) 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 to obtain this very valuable protection as soon as possible.

Memberships with Legal Shield are available in South Carolina, and other states, and also available in some provinces in Canada.  The membership provides numerous benefits for a low-cost monthly payment.  

It is an AMAZING BARGAIN so read on and find out why Legal Shield (formerly PPL) is a very important company for you to learn about. 

his situation 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 or federal courts is not automatic and it is also not free, as this report shows convincingly.  


Lon's Litigation Experiences
Began in March 1989 
Lon Willoughby is not an attorney, but a very challenging set of circumstances forced him to learn a lot about judicial systems in America.  Unfortunate situations occurred during year 1989 that required Lonnie Willoughby (living in South Carolina) to become a defendant 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.  

Lon's father died November 22,1986 - from another heart attack.  
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 Willoughby believed was the proper amount for her monthly 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 Lonnie 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 Lonnie Willoughby to retain a "defense attorney" in the distant state to help him defend his very responsible and prudent co-trustee actions (refused to approve excessive monthly trust income distributions to said beneficiary).  

He tried to resolve this family-member dispute in a responsible, sensible, and low-cost manner, but the trust beneficiary insisted on suing co-trustee in an effort to force him to give in to her demands.  

Lon learned later that she also wanted him removed as a co-trustee of the trust estate because he would not allow said beneficiary to dominate and control the way the two co-trustees managed the monthly distribution of income.

Lon's subscribed to professional financial advisory services and that information had warned that Japan might be subject to a substantial decrease in their real estate market and their stock market. 

Lon understood that those events could have a major impact upon the world economy and also the U.S. economy, and those situations might cause a severely reduced income 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 (USA) acted quickly to try 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 bankruptcy caused the failure of a large mortgage note (several hundred thousand dollars) that was held by the trust estate (interest from that mortgage note had previously provided most of the trust estate income for monthly distributions to the three beneficiaries).

Lon's previous actions had helped his parents establish an inter Vivos trust agreement estate plan that would enable the Willoughby family to minimize federal estate taxes and also minimize probate litigation expenses for his parent's jointly owned estate value. 

The resulting Inter Vivos trust agreement 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 $90,000+ in probate litigation expenses (attorney fees) on a jointly owned estate value that was about 1.2 million dollars. 
Unfortunately, the beneficiary that sued Lon Jr. did not understand the important financial benefits that Lon's faithful competent co-trustee actions had provided to the ultimate family estate value, and she did not seem to appreciate or care about the complex estate planning actions that Lon Jr. had taken that had benefited her greatly. 

He received no income for his very responsible co-trustee actions with his younger brother (who was an incompetent co-trustee - Lon, Jr. did all of the important trustee work for several years).

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 very complex trust administration issues and several years of very stressful disruptive conditions caused by the ongoing family-member dispute situations that had cost him a lot of lost personal income.

Lon Jr. had not charged the beneficiaries anything for his years of trustee services until the dispute occurred and began to interfere greatly with his ability to make a living for himself and his family. 
Trust estate litigation in the distant state (Florida) is an equity court issue; therefore, Co-trustee Lon was not allowed to have a jury trial.  (Jury trials are not allowed when litigating Equity Court issues) 

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 very frustrated that any judge in America would attempt to get away with such an outrageously unfair denial of fundamental due process of law standards for a defendant litigant.  

Co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. had a very smart, well experience competent "defense attorney" representing him (with about 22 years of Florida trial attorney experience), and Lon had arranged for a court reporter to record the trial.  

Lon Jr. subsequently paid $1350 to the court reporter's office for preparing a transcript for the one-day trial.  (Two Volumes of transcription pages - 267 pages total.) 
After carefully reviewing the printed transcript, it was clear to Co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby that his "local" defense attorney had collusively cooperated with a grossly unfair and unethical litigation scheme that had been perpetrated by the plaintiff's "local" attorney. 

The scheme ruthlessly ambushed 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 previous discover actions in June 1989, a deposition had been taken with the plaintiff and Lon Willoughby.  She testified under oath that co-trustee Lon Willoughby had not mismanaged the trust assets.  

A transcript of her deposition testimony could have showed that she was using the litigation to put pressure on co-trustee Lon Willoughby, Jr. to "agree" to pay her the increase monthly amount from the trust assets that her attorney had previously demanded that co-trustee Lon Jr. agree to pay.

However, during the subsequent non-jury trial in September 1989, the plaintiff's attorney introduced five surprise complaints against co-trustee Lon Willoughby in an effort to convince the judge that Lon Jr. had mismanaged the trust assets and should be removed as a co-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 civil case).  

In addition to that extreme breach of fundamental due process of law standards, none of the five surprise complaint issues had been raised during the discovery process (completed several weeks prior to trial). 
The trial transcript showed convincingly that the "local" circuit court judge knowingly and willingly "cooperated" with the outrageously unfair and unethical litigation scheme to ambush co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby during the trial with five surprise complaints (all were false complaints). 

The Final Judgment (detailed written legal opinion for the case) was not rendered until several weeks after the trial. 
Lon Willoughby 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 Lonnie Willoughby's favor regarding the plaintiff's two original Complaint issues, but the judge unfairly ruled against co-trustee Lon Jr. on three of the five surprise complaint issues. 

Lon was appalled, dismayed, and very frustrated by the extremely unfair, unethical, and outrageously false prejudicial statements about him in the Final Judgment

He was also very disappointed and frustrated by the collusion of his defense attorney, the plaintiff's attorney, and the extremely unfair and unethical (corrupt) Circuit Court judge

It was now clear to Lon Jr. that the judge had knowingly and willingly "cooperated" with an unfair, unethical, and outrageously corrupt litigation scheme that had denied non-resident co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. fundamental due process of law standards regarding five surprise complaint issues that were brought into the litigation process during the trial. (Smoking gun issues

Lon's defense attorney was a prominent "local" attorney, and he had objected 
four separate times to the surprise complaints being introduced during the trial.  However, the trial court judge instantly overruled all of his objections.  

Co-trustee Lon Jr. knew nothing about proper objections during trial.  Consequently, he did not know what kind of objections his defense attorney should have presented.

Months later, Lon Jr. learned that his defense attorney's objections had failed to show how co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. would be "prejudiced" (damaged or injured) if the trial court judge allowed the surprise complaints to be litigated (after objections were made). 

One of his objections stated:  we object to these issues, that is not why we are here today.  The judge put words in his mouth by saying, are you objecting on the basis of materiality and relevance?  The defense attorney then said yes.  The judge instantly said "overruled!

Months later, Lon Jr. learned that objecting on the basis of materiality and relevance is a foolish and useless objection because all trial court judges have broad discretion to deny that specific objection. 

Lon also learned that that type of objection will not preserve any trial court error for a later appeal.  That objection will not be overruled (reversed) by an appellate court. 

The defense attorney also knew, or should have known, that an appellate court will not reverse a trial judge's decision regarding such objections. 

The 267-page 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 record also showed conclusively that the trial court judge willingly allowed and enabled the plaintiff's attorney to ruthlessly and maliciously ambush co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby with a series of surprise complaint issues after the non-jury trial had begun.

Many months later, Lon's diligent ongoing legal research discovered why the defense attorney's objections had not properly preserved judicial error for appellate review. 

The highly experienced and skilled defense attorney made ineffective objections while he pretended to be defending co-trustee Lon Willoughby, Jr. appropriately. 

With 22 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, and also preserve any trial court error for being reversed on appeal. 

Lon's extensive legal research about this issue 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 trial court judge allowing in testimony about surprise complaint issues. 

However, during the trial, co-trustee Lon Willoughby, Jr. did not understand what kind of objections were needed.  He presumed that his very smart and very experienced defense attorney was making appropriate objections.

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 obviously unfair and unethical judicial actions that were willingly allowing the plaintiff's attorney to ambush co-trustee Lon Jr. with surprise complaint issues during the trial.

After subsequently obtaining and carefully studying the 267-page trial transcript, Lon Jr. 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, Jr. during trial with several false surprise complaints. 

The attorneys' collusive ambush scheme deliberately denied co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. fundamental due process of law standards.  He was denied a reasonable amount of time and opportunity to prepare his defenses against the additional surprise complaint issues.  

He was ruthlessly denied an opportunity to bring in an expert trust administration attorney witness dur the trial to show that Lon Jr's disputed co-trustee actions hac been accomplished in a competent and responsible manner. 

Many months after the trial, Lonnie Jr. learned that this type of deceptive trial court scheme and tactic is in direct conflict with long established judicial standards established by the Supreme Court of that state. The court had issued a benchmark standard that said that surprise complaint issues could not be introduced during a trial.  All issues to be litigation had to be identified in the pleadings. 

C0-trustee Lonnie Willoughby could have defended himself successfully regarding the additional complaint issues, but he would have really needed to present expert testimony by a "professional estate planning and trust administration expert" at trial (an attorney).  

That would have been the way to competently present a defense for the complex trust administration technical issues that were involved with some of the five additional surprise complaint issues. 

This ambush complaint situation illustrates the extremely unfair and unethical nature of the "surprise complaints ambush scheme" that was used to attack and defeat a very responsible family member who had served as co-trustee very competently for 68 months with no pay.

Lon eventually learned that the plaintiff's attorney had drafted the Final Judgment document for the trial judge.  Lon's legal research about that issue discovered that this drafting of a trial court order (Final Judgment) is common practice in the trial courts of the distant state (Florida). 

The attorney used that opportunity to make extremely unfair, unethical, and outrageously fraudulent prejudicial statements against Co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. in the Final Judgment.  Those negative statements were then used to ruthlessly destroy Lon Jr's reputation with all of his relatives - aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews, and some family friends, etc.

It was clear that the records for the litigation, and the official trial transcript, proved conclusively that there was no evidence presented during the litigation to support the extremely prejudicial adverse statements about co-trustee Lon Willoughby, Jr. that were contained in the Final Judgment

Some of those statements were outrageously false and co-trustee Lon Willoughby, Jr. had no opportunity to defend himself from the false statements drafted into the Final Judgment by the unfair, unethical, and corrupt plaintiff's attorney

It should be noted here that co-trustee Lon Jr's "defense attorney" could have objected to the false prejudicial statements about Lon Jr. in the Final Judgment, but he obviously did not object to those ruthless false statements.  

Lon's defense attorney also failed to help Lon Jr. get a rehearing of the Final Judgment - although it was clear to said attorney that the Final Judgment was an extremely unfair, and unethical judgment that also contained outrageously false ruthless statements about Lon Jr.  

Those two situations were further proof that Lonnie's defense attorney had deceitfully betrayed his client (co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby) and had actually helped the plaintiff's attorney force Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. out of his co-trustee position with the family's trust administration estate, even though Lon's father had personally selected him to be the lead co-trustee because Lon Jr. was clearly knowledgeable about the trust administration legal standards and his trust administration duties. 

Lon's mother had insisted that the younger brother also be selected as a co-trustee simply to prevent him from possibly getting his feelings hurt if he had been left out of the trustee situation. 

Prior to this trial court litigation, Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. had no idea that trial attorneys and trial court judges could get away with being extremely unfair, unethical, disgustingly corrupt-minded, criminal-minded scoundrels.  However, other events reported herein will clearly show how corrupt judicial actions in Florida courts can be.

The trial court judge signed the unfair, unethical, and 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 single-handedly in a very competent and diligent manner for several years. 

His younger brother, as co-trustee, was not a competent co-trustee.  He had a deep-seated sibling rivalry attitude about his older brother, and he had actually helped the plaintiff cause this retaliation type litigation against his older brother.

The Final Judgment removed Larry Willoughby and Lonnie Willoughby as co-trustees (brothers) of their deceased father's trust agreement estate and reassigned all trustee duties to the local CPA who had completed the plaintiff's federal tax reports for several years (Form 1040). 

That was the same CPA that had testified for the plaintiff during trial and had given false (perjured) testimony about her annual income for the two consecutive years prior to the trial year. 

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 the start of litigation process).  The dishonest CPA's testimony tried to make it look like the plaintiff really did need additional monthly income from the trust agreement estate.

After the trial, Lon quickly obtained copies of the beneficiary's Federal Form 1040 tax reports from her (that had been completed by this CPA).  Those two Form 1040 reports 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 legitimate complaint about the CPA's perjured testimony at trial.  The investigative officer (police captain) told Lon that the trial court 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 recent 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 had begun.
Lon eventually understood that the extremely prejudicial statements contained in the Final Judgment were calculated to severely prejudice the appellate court judges against Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. if he chose to appeal the Final Judgment

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 situation is another illustration of the extremely unfair and unethical litigation scheme perpetrated against co-trustee Lon Willoughby, Jr. by two extremely dishonest and corrupt attorneys and a corrupt circuit court judge, acting in criminal-minded collusion with each other, in the distant state's "Equity Court" system.  Lon will explain later what their likely motives were for conducting an outrageously corrupt one-day trial.
Discovery Process in the
Distant State Court System
The Florida judicial system's discovery process was adopted by Florida'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 also review the evidence to be presented by the defendant, thereby providing a fair opportunity for the defendant 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 legal standards for fair discovery practice and for 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 had conducted some legal research about those issues, Lon Jr. 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 him 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 criminal-minded litigation process that then continued for 20 years. 

Lon's conducted a lot of legal research about the extremely unfair and unethical manner in which the trial was conducted and he 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 easy for co-trustee Lon Jr's defense attorney to win.

Subsequent events showed that the plaintiff's "local" attorney effectively gained control of the trust agreement estate assets through the court's appointment of the "local" CPA as successor trustee for the substantial trust estate assets.  The trust agreement estate was funded by Lon's father in December 1985 (inter Vivos trust estate).   
At that point in his litigation education process, Lon did not realize that the judicial systems in America could routinely allow and enable trial court judges to do practically anything they choose to do, no matter how unfair or unethical corrupt their judicial actions may be to the naive litigants involved.
Lon did not understand that trial court judges can get away with casually and routinely allowing trial court attorneys to conduct litigation using unfair, unethical, and ruthlessly fraudulent litigation schemes and tactics. 
Lon Willoughby 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 previous 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's attorney general, the state's governor, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the U.S. attorney in Jacksonville, Florida (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 fraudulent 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 the plaintiff's local attorney  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 family trust agreement estate, but the judicial system has denied Lon access to his share of the trust estate assets for many years. As reported below, they planned to take most of that money away from him at a later time.  (And they did, $126,000 dollars).

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 agreement assets.

The alleged cumulative judgments rendered against Lon eventually amounted to $126,000+, counting the "attorney fee awards" and interest that has been accumulating against Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. because of the multiple unfair, unethical, and fraudulent trial court judgments that had been entered against him, along with an alleged discovery violation fine that had accumulated at $50 per day for many months.

Discovery Violation Allegation

There actually was no discovery violation by defendant Lon Jr., but the plaintiff law firm's attorney had lied to the county court judge about that issue.  

He and the county court judge had also "cooperated" in a criminal-minded collusive manner to force Lon Jr. into a situation where he could not defend himself from that fraudulent allegation because he would have been convicted again for another fraudulent "contempt of court" allegation. 

If that fourth conviction for "contempt of court" had occurred, and the accumulated jail time (already at ten months for three unfair and fraudulent convictions for "contempt of court") had been increased to 12 months or more, the court could have communicated with the governor of South Carolina and requested that Lon Jr. be arrested in South Carolina (at his home) and then be extradited to Florida, where this litigation process was still in progress. 

Lon Jr. would have then been locked up in the local county jail for 12 months (or more).  So, you can see why defendant Lon Willoughby, Jr. could not file a motion with the County Court asking for a rehearing about the alleged discovery violation that was absolutely false.  That action would have surely been considered another contempt of court action.

Lon also realized that no matter what defensive argument that he might have presented, the "very cooperative" county court judge would have continued "cooperating" with the local plaintiff law firm's attorney. 

The attorney could have simply said: "your honor, I maybe didn't explain the situation as well as I should have when I told you defendant Willoughby had not provided answers to our Interrogatories.  He did provide some answers in a timely manner, but we were not satisfied with some of his answers. 

The main point that a reader should get out of this situation is this:  the discovery Interrogatories violation complaint was an extremely dangerous and treacherous situation for non-resident defendant, because no matter what answers he subsequently provided to some of the Interrogatories, the law firm's attorney can always come back to the county court judge and claim that they are still not satisfied with Lon Willoughby's interrogatory answers. 

In that event, the "cooperative" county court judge would have still maintained the $50 per day fine indefinitely into the future - until the law firm finally decided enough theft is enough and terminated the fine - which they eventually did. 

Trial Judges and Retaliation Actions
Trial judges repeatedly retaliated against Lon Jr's diligent sui juris pro se efforts to defend himself from a ruthless and malicious barrage of unfair and unethical criminal-minded litigation schemes and tactics.  

Sui juris pro se means litigating for self as a competent, responsible adult - the litigant is 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.
Lon Willoughby has also lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential income, as he persisted in trying to get some responsible actions taken about the extremely unfair unethical, and outrageously corrupt criminal-minded judicial actions that were taken against him in the distant state's trial courts and appellate courts.
Lon had been unable to hold any job since 1989, up to the present time (20+ years later) because Lon was determined to defend himself sui juris pro-se from the extremely unfair and unethical criminal-minded litigation actions being perpetrated against him by the plaintiff law firm in the distant state.  

The ongoing litigation circumstances required that Lon be self-employed so he could frequently 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 harassment litigation actions being perpetrated upon him by the plaintiff law firm in Palatka, Florida.    
The official trial court records of those litigation actions show that a series of successive trial court judges consistently "cooperated" with any unfair, unethical, criminal-minded litigation scheme or tactic that was presented by the plaintiff law firm's attorney in the court against the distant non-resident defendant Lon Willoughby. 
The extremely unethical defense attorney who deceitfully betrayed Lon's co-trustee litigation interests at trial in September 1989 subsequently caused a ruthless barrage of vindictive and malicious harassment and persecution litigation schemes and tactics against Lon Willoughby due to Lon's refusal to pay the obviously corrupt law firm any more money for their grossly incompetent and fraudulent litigation services for co-trustee Lon Willoughby during 1989.

That litigation dispute continued from 1989 for the next 20+ years due to the extremely unfair, unethical, and outrageously corrupt self-serving judicial system.
If Lon could have afforded to retain attorneys to do the litigation work that he did for himself pro se, his litigation expenses for attorney fees would have exceeded several hundred thousand dollars.  

Unfortunately, the judicial system operates in such an extremely unfair, unethical self-serving manner that Lon was unable to  locate a trial attorney, within 70 miles of the trial 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 obstruct justice by committing fraudulent litigation through collusive actions with an opposing attorney and an unfair, unethical, and corrupt circuit court judge.  

Lon therefore had no viable choice but to give up or quickly learn how to present all of his litigation actions by himself (pro se), without any assistance or help from any attorney. 

Lon Willoughby gradually learned how to take those litigation actions in a competent manner through extensive legal research and a lot of study (hundreds of hours of Lon's time) 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. 

He 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 year 2010.

The litigation in the distant state continued for 20+ years with many years of relentless, ruthless, and malicious harassment litigation actions against non-resident Lon Willoughby.

The attorneys and judges in the distant state were determined to punish Lon Willoughby severely, using any ruthless, malicious criminal-minded litigation scheme or tactic that they could collusively concoct because:
     1) Lon had personally helped his parents develop a very good comprehensive estate plan that would legally minimize federal estate taxes on his parent's jointly owned assets (about 1,200,000 dollars) and also minimize probate litigation expenses for both parents and
     2) because Lon did not allow the attorneys to get away with their extremely unfair, unethical, and fraudulent litigation schemes and tactics during the trust agreement estate litigation that occurred during 1989 and
     3) Lon had refused to give in to the unfair, unethical, and corrupt extortionist demands for more attorney fees for that fraudulent litigation process.
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 10 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 more than 9,000 miles in his automobile due to the ongoing litigation process.  He has been required to make several trips to the distant state for various litigation actions - retaining attorneys, depositions, motion hearings, conducting legal research, reviewing litigation records, participating in trials and related appeals, etc.  

On one of his trips to the distant state, Lon's wife, Janie, was driving in a very heavy rainstorm while passenger Lon Jr. was studying issues that he would present to the court in the distant state the next morning. 

An oil tanker truck crashed into the rear end of their like-new Mercury station wagon, just a few seconds after Janie had to stopped behind a large "moving van" truck that had stopped on the Interstate Highway - because the car in front of the moving van had stopped in the right lane of the Interstate Highway due to very heavy rain. 
Janie had to stop because the vehicle right in front of the van truck had stopped and blocked that lane of an Interstate highway.  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). 

 They were almost killed in this automobile wreck. They were traveling about 500 miles so Lon could attend and participate in a trial court hearing that had been scheduled against co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. in the distant state court by the plaintiff's attorney. 

They had to rent a car in the small town near the accident, but there was no car rental agency in this small town.  Fortunately, the auto service station that had towed their wrecked station wagon off the Interstate Highway had an old car available that Lon could rent. 

That is how Lon and Janie managed to get back on the nearby Interstate Highway and continue their travel after they had both been released from the local hospital (medical inspections, X-rays, etc.). 

The wreck had really messed up their travel schedule; they could only allow a few hours of rest and sleep in a motel before they continued their travel early the next day.

Janie and Lon were able to get to the court just in time for him to participate in the motion hearing because they had been able to rent that old car from the service station owner in the nearby small town a few miles from their wreck site on the nearby interstate highway.  Janie's facial injuries were severe and quite obvious at that time. 

She had one really bad black and blue eye, and her face was swelled up due to fluid retention around the injured tissue area.   Both of her eyes were almost swelled shut.

Court Systems in America - State and Federal Courts

Do They Typically Operate in a Fair and
Impartial Manner Toward 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 most of the time. 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 apparent prejudicial bias to favor the plaintiff's attorney or favor the state's prosecuting attorney.
Lon Willoughby learned that such courage and integrity among trial attorneys is essentially impossible to find.  Why is this so?

One major reason is the fact that most trial attorneys practice law before the same trial judge numerous times, and they cannot afford for any of these omnipotent judges to get irritated or upset with them. 

Trial attorneys understand that trial judges can easily retaliate against them in future cases, or in other prejudicial ways that can severely damage their legal career. 

Judges can communicate with each other and collusively retaliate against any trial attorney who does not willingly "cooperate" when a judge chooses (decides) to provide unfair and unethical biased favoritism toward an opposing party.   

Over time, Lon learned that he had no choice but to represent himself in the trial court and in 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.  He could not locate a trial attorney that could be trusted to aggressively represent Lon's litigation interest at trial or during appeal case process.

As shown in this very revealing expose' report, it is extremely difficult to find a trial attorney (lawyer) who has sufficient courage and integrity to aggressively represent his client's litigation interest before an unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded corrupt trial court judge. 
Lon's extensive litigation experiences proved conclusively that it is essentially impossible to get any responsible investigative actions taken about unfair, unethical self-serving judicial actions after they have occurred. 

Lon Willoughby learned that appellant court judges can easily act in an unfair and unethical self-serving manner, and they will generally refuse to do anything responsible about initiating an investigation 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 court judge issued unfair, unethical fraudulent orders to make the case come out the way the judge wanted, contrary to the facts and responsible evidence and relevant legal standards presented in the case.

He learned that trial court judges and appellate court judges apparently despise any litigant who attempts to proceed pro se.  Judges know they can "control and manipulate" attorneys (lawyers) because they must always act in a subservient manner - or suffer serious career consequences.

When Lon reported and exposed 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 investigative legal authorities (they routinely do not request appropriate investigations of well-documented judicial actions that are obviously unfair and unethical, and/or criminal in nature - such as falsifying orders or allowing other official records in the case to be falsified, 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 by abused litigants.

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 to do so. 

He discovered that the judicial systems usually have a very "cooperative" working agreement with law enforcement agencies and investigative agents.  

That buddy - buddy situation makes it practically impossible for a severely abused, harassed, and/or persecuted punished litigant to get any state or federal law enforcement agency to investigate legitimate complaints about extremely unfair and unethical judicial actions by a trial court 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 the 
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 Florida 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 appeal 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 - with pages about 6.5 inches wide and 9 inches tall. 

In addition, one must timely file exactly 40 copies of the book (Petition) in the high court (Washington D.C.).  

Photocopies of exhibit documents are not allowed (due to small size format of the book), so all exhibit documents must be retyped word-for-word 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 many pages from the relevant trial transcript). 

This small book size requirement is an extremely unreasonable bureaucratic legal standard that greatly increases the cost, time, trouble, work, and expense involved with presenting a Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.  (They obviously want to make it extremely difficult and very expensive to file an appeal in the high court.)

It is very difficult and expensive to comply with the very stringent filing requirements of the high court, and it costs many thousands of dollars to have a law firm submit a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Lon believes the court's very expensive and tedious format requirements are designed to severely 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 40-50 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 actually take time to adjudicate a submitted appeal 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 cases per year) and make their 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 40-50 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 states that the "Petition is 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 for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (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 approximate 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, the realistic odds of an individual's appeal to the high court being heard are usually less than 1 in 1000 of getting your civil case Petition for Writ of Certiorari adjudicated by the justices of the high court.  Unfortunately, Lon did not know about those terrible odds when he submitted two appeal cases to the U.S. Supreme 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, without understanding those odds at the time, Lon Willoughby jumped through all of the legal hoops and diligently submitted two separate cases to the high court in his determined efforts to expose the extremely unfair, unethical criminal-minded 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 that his "Petition is 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, and outrageously corrupt 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 - 6.5 inches X 9 inches high.  He shipped exactly 40 printed copies of his Petition to the high court in an expedited manner, so they would arrive and be filed with the high court within the limited time allowed for filing.  
Lon's experiences with the high court's extremely bureaucratic appeal procedures, and his numerous appeals in the Florida appellate court, and his litigation actions in the federal trial court and federal appellate court systems, enabled him to understand that the judicial systems in the United States frequently operate in such an extremely unfair, unethical self-serving manner that they can easily be a heinous fraud upon the public's naive trust placed in the judiciary (state and federal court systems).  

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 state or federal government investigative 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 shown in the information presented below.
Trial court 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 (in the trial courts or in the 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 - unless a litigant learns how to be a competent litigator as Lon Willoughby had to do.
Lon has learned that there is a long-standing, well-established understanding that there is almost no chance that such judicial actions will be exposed by attorneys (lawyers); consequently, there is no reasonable chance that unfair, unethical judicial actions will be investigated and prosecuted in a responsible manner. 

Consequently, extremely abusive and corrupt judicial actions can continue for many years, as they have with Lon Willoughby, even for severely abused litigant who responsibly reports and exposes such judicial actions to appropriate government authorities.
Lon has personally researched and reviewed 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 American judicial systems). 
In essence, from Lon's present vantage point of extensive experience with litigation and the judiciary, the judicial process appears to be 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 responsibly, but do FBI attorneys have sufficient integrity to investigate and then prosecute responsibly unfair, unethical, and corrupt trial judges? 

It is important to remember that trial court 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 take a responsible look at his evidentiary documents in a fair-minded ethical manner, and no law enforcement agency, state or federal, has made any responsible effort to investigate Lon's valid and very substantial well-documented complaints about unfair, unethical and corrupt judicial actions in the Florida courts. 

Those situations are a clear illustration of just how outrageously unfair and corrupt the judicial and law enforcement "brotherhood" can be in an extremely unfair, unethical self-serving manner for their mutual benefit. 

Lon learned that they could do this any time the judge chooses to do so, irrespective of the tremendous emotional, financial, and social damages that may be perpetrated upon a severely abused and persecuted litigant.

Twenty + Years of Ongoing Related
 Litigation Cases and Appeals 

Twenty Years of Unfair, Unethical Judicial Actions 
Against Non-resident Litigant Lonnie Willoughby
At this point in time, Lon has spent more than 17,000 hours conducting pro se litigation actions in Florida courts - 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 continued for more than twenty years before Lon refused to litigate any further.

The initial civil litigation began in March 1989 (family member dispute about Lon's co-trustee actions - he would not agree to approve excessive monthly income funds to a family member trust agreement estate beneficiary).

Lon knew that she did not need additional income at that time, and he was concerned about her having enough income reserves to last for the rest of her life (she died at age 94 after living in assisted living quarters for years). 

After  Lon Jr. was betrayed by two attorneys (trial court action and then a related appeal court action), Lon gave up on attorney legal representation in year 1990.  He began litigating pro se (representing himself in the litigation actions - without any legal guidance or assistance from an attorney). 
Lon repeatedly exposed numerous serious incidents of unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded litigation schemes and tactics to a series of trial judges and appellate court judges (several appeal cases).  Unfortunately, he did not encounter 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 criminal-minded corrupt judicial actions against him were summarily ignored by trial court judges and a series of appellate court judges - every time Lon filed a formal complaint with the state judicial system in the distant state (more than 10 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 surely be arrested and then put in the local county jail for ten months (due to the multiple unfair and unethical contempt of court adjudication jail sentences recorded against Lon Willoughby). 
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 unfair and unethical ruthless and malicious criminal-minded judicial actions against non-resident defendant Lon Willoughby, Jr.    
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

In his federal court civil action case, plaintiff Lon Willoughby, Jr. filed a detailed TRO motion report (40+ pages), with many exhibit documents, to responsibly expose the extremely unfair, unethical, corrupt judicial schemes and tactics being used by the FDA and the county court judge to prevent plaintiff Lon Jr. from being able to travel into the state and prosecute his very important federal court civil action against three unfair, unethical, and corrupt attorneys from that state. 

The chief federal judge for that federal court district of the distant state just happened to be the judge assigned to adjudicate plaintiff Lon Willoughby's federal case.

Lon's detailed TRO 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, Jr. to travel into the distant state without fear of being arrested due to the two arrest warrants that every sheriff in the state had for Lon Jr'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, Jr. to have a fair opportunity to continue prosecuting his case pro se in the federal court in that distant state.  

Consequently, the FDA and the county court judge in the distant state ruthlessly and maliciously prevented plaintiff Lon Willoughby, Jr. from having a fair opportunity to proceed with his pro se prosecution of his federal civil litigation complaint, and Lon Jr. lost his federal case simply because he was denied a fair opportunity to present his case in a federal court jury trial. 
Lon was confident that he would likely win his case if he could simply get his complaints before the jury.  However, the federal judge dismissed plaintiff Lon Willoughby, Jr's case before trial because Lon Jr. could not travel into the state to complete the pretrial prosecution actions. 

The unfair and unethical arrest warrants that the state circuit court judge had issued  against non-resident defendant Lon Willoughby, Jr. knowingly and willfully prevented Lon Willoughby, Jr. from being able to travel within the distant state.  

Consequently, plaintiff Lon Willoughby, Jr. was improperly prevented from conducting any discovery actions within the distant state and also prevented from attending any federal court motion hearings, other pretrial actions, or a trial for his case within the distant state.  (The two improper, unfair, and unethical judicial warrants for his arrest had been sent to all sheriffs in the distant state.)  

We will show later in this report that non-resident defendant Lon Willoughby, Jr. subsequently won one of his appeal cases that confirmed and verified that the county court judge did not have subject-matter jurisdiction of the issues that had been used to convict Lon Jr. of three separate counts of "contempt of court"  - fraudulently claiming that defendant Lon Willoughby, Jr. had violated a circuit court's order.

The county court judge then issued the two arrest warrants with all sheriff's of the distant state for the arrest of Lonnie Willoughby, Jr. if he could be found anywhere within the distant state. 
This appalling, disgusting, and very frustrating unfair, unethical, criminal-minded "judicial process" has gone on for more than twenty years.  During those years, Lon took appropriate actions to have three state court judges recused (removed) from his cases due to their obvious unfair and unethical  prejudice against the non-resident litigant who was litigated pro se in "their" court. 

All of the judges involved should have been recused from his litigation process but there are limits to how many judges can be recused.

Although three judge were removed from Lon's litigation, there was no punishment for any of them for the outrageously unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded  judicial actions that had been taken against Lon Willoughby, Jr. 

The extreme level of judicial fraud caused severe prejudicial damage to Lon's legal issues and that damage remained after each judge 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 Jr. had reported unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded judicial actions that had been perpetrated upon Lon Willoughby, Jr. by the recused judge. 

The successor circuit court judge then issued an injunctive order that prohibited non-resident Lon Willoughby, Jr. from filing any pleadings in the case unless they were signed by an attorney (in that state). 

The circuit court judge surely knew that defendant Lon Willoughby, Jr. would not be able to find any competent trial attorney to represent him, so that meant that defendant Lon Willoughby, Jr. would not be allowed to present any defense for himself against any further litigation actions or claims that the plaintiff law firm's attorney (FDA) filed against against him. 

That situation shows the extremely unfair, unethical, and outrageously corrupt judicial nature of the circuit court judge that improperly issued that injunctive order.

"Affirmed, Per Curium" Appeal Decision - 
With No Written Legal Opinion Provided
Lon timely appealed that outrageously unfair and unethical punishment action (injunctive order) because it was an extremely unfair, unethical, criminal-minded effort to deny defendant Lon Willoughby, Jr. a fair and impartial judicial forum and deny him fundamental due process of law standards. 

He had a constitutionally protected right, pursuant to the State's Constitution, to present his own pro se defensive actions and the circuit court judge had ruthlessly and maliciously taken that right away with a one page order that improperly denied him any further opportunity to present his own defensive litigation actions in the circuit court case.

The appellate court subsequently issued an Affirmed, Per Curium decision, without providing any written legal opinion explaining why they totally ignored the obvious unfair, unethical, criminal-minded judicial actions taken against defendant Lon Willoughby, Jr. by the circuit court judge.  

The Affirmed, Per Curium decision, with no legal opinion, also tactically avoided showing why the judicial panel of judges totally ignored the controlling legal standards and advisory legal standards that strongly supported Appellant Lon Willoughby, Jr's appeal arguments.  

Defendant Lon Willoughby, Jr. 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 defendant Lon Willoughby, Jr. had pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the distant state. 
An Affirmed, Per Curium decision, without providing a written legal opinion for the appeal, is the appellate court's Ace of Spades for an appeal decision. 

An Affirmed, Per Curium appeal decision means the three judge appellate panel agreed unanimously to affirm (support) the trial judge's disputed judicial actions - they did not agree with any of Appellant Lon Willoughby, Jr's appeal argument issues. 

This appeal decision also allows the appellate court judges to avoid having to write a legal opinion for the appeal case - a legal report that would explain the legal basis used to provide their appeal decision. 
In Lon's twelve appeals in the distant state's judicial system, the appellate court has usually rendered an Affirmed, Per Curium, decision (with no written 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 came to understand that an Affirmed, Per Curium appeal decision, without a written legal opinion for the case, can be utilized any time an appellate panel of judges (three judges) is willing to corruptly 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, an Affirmed, Per Curium appeal decision, with no written 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 in their efforts to affirm the trial judge's disputed judicial actions, as reported in the Appellant's Appeal Brief.   
Expense and Futility of Appeals - 
Is this a Corrupt Extortion Racket?
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 and 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 three words: Affirmed, Per Curium.
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 Curium.  This is a shortcut way of stating that the judicial panel of judges (usually three judges) unanimously agreed with (approved of or found no significant fault with) 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 twenty + 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 and fair appeal decisions.   

But we must consider that each appeal has filing fees that bring in several hundred dollars into the court system, and each appeal requires the employment of attorneys to represent and present the appeal arguments for both sides (can cost many thousand of dollars for each litigant involved in the appeals).  

There are other substantial costs that can be involved - such as the fees involved in preparing the trial court records for presentation to the appellate court system (can cost several hundred dollars to thousands of dollars; this money must be paid by the appellant to the trial court system that caused the disputed litigation).

You can easily see that this is big business for a state's judicial system, bringing in millions of dollars per year into the judicial system.  

Can you see why judges are not inclined to take judicial actions that might reduce the number of appeals coming into the appellate courts located in numerous places in the state? 

This situation can easily be a very unfair and unethical self-serving money making scheme that is beneficial to thousands of people associated with the legal system in the state (attorneys, judges, judicial assistants, clerks of court, deputy clerks of court, court reporters, secretaries, file clerks, and some other people).

Are the Judicial Systems a Form of
Self-serving Organized Crime?
Lon found repeatedly that the appeal process is a self-serving mess of judicial corruption that actually enables and essentially encourages unfair, unethical, and corrupt litigation actions in the trial courts. 

This extremely unfair litigation process enables trial attorneys to make 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 Curium appeal decision, with no written 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, this three word decision, without a written legal opinion for the appeal, automatically denies the appellant any reasonable opportunity to appeal that decision to a higher court (the State's Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of the United States ), as Lon personally experienced twice. 

How often does this occur?  Lon's extensive appeal cases caused him to believe that it occurs almost all of the times when the appellate court judges do not want to write an opinion for the appeal case that might reflect negatively against the judicial system, or the legal system, or any members of the legal profession.

Lon learned that a higher court will not review an appellate court decision that has no written opinion for the appeal case.  Without a written opinion, there is no legal opinion available for the higher court to review. 

Consequently, after going to a lot of trouble and expense to file two cases in the United States Supreme Court, exposing extremely unfair and unethical judicial actions in the trial court and in the subsequent appellate court, Lon eventually learned that the higher appellate court (federal or state) will not review an Affirmed, Per Curium Affirmed decision that does not have a written opinion for the case. 

He finally realized that the Affirmed, Per Curium Affirmed appeal decision, with no written opinion for the case, is a convenient judicial tactic that is designed to allow appellate court judges to be extremely unfair and unethical any time the appellate panel of judges chooses to do so and willfully cause a fraudulent outcome for an appeal. 

This occurred over and over and over with Lon's multiple appeal cases during his 20+ years ordeal with corrupt judges,

He found that the appellate panel of judges (usually three judges) can mutually decide to manipulate the outcome of the appeal to suit their own objectives for the appeal decision - any time the three judges choose to do so and for whatever reasons they decide to do so because this appeal decision does not require them to explain the legal basis of their appeal decision.  This extremely unfair judicial tactic allows extreme judicial corruption to easily occur.

In other words, appellate court judges can easily cover-up any judicial actions exposed on appeal that were extremely unfair, unethical, or criminal in nature.  Lon's numerous appeal cases (12+) proved conclusively that appellate court judges frequently considered that outrageously unfair, unethical, and corrupt self-serving judicial situations in the trial courts were appropriate JUSTICE. 

He won only two of his twelve appeal cases and the rest of his appeals were given the grossly unfair and unethical Affirmed, Per Curium decision with no legal opinion, or his appeal was simply denied (the appellate court judges gave no explanation for their denial 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 judicial 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. 

In many appeals this written opinion (decision) would be only one or two short paragraphs.  Some cases might need a legal explanation that would be one or two pages in length (medium level complex appeal cases). A few complex appeals might involve several pages to present the appeal decision in some reasonable amount of detail.
This situation is exceptionally important when the appellate panel renders an Affirmed, Per Curium decision because this decision means the three judges unanimously ruled against all of the appellant's specified argument issues.

The appellant has usually gone to a lot of trouble and expense to present the appeal case, and the appeal brief might have 3, or 4, or maybe 5 argument issues that need to be adjudicated by the appellate panel of judges. 

The appellant certainly deserves to know the legitimate legal basis for the appellant court's three judge panel's decision to rule against each and every one of the appellant's specific argument issues (which are usually supported by strong documentary evidence of the legal basis of each appeal argument issue). Without strong evidence, it is usually obvious that the appeal will be a big waste of time and money and effort (likely will lose).
Lon believes that all appellate court decisions should be required to explain the legitimate legal basis for their opinion - if there was in fact a legitimate legal basis for the appeal court decision to affirm the disputed action of the trial court litigation actions. 

However, when no legal opinion is provided for the affirmed decision, it is easy to see that the three judge appellate court panel can easily render an unfair, unethical, and criminal-minded appeal decision because the appellate court judges are "allowed" to not provide any written legal opinion for their decision to affirm (agree with) the lower trial court judge's decision for the case. 

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 20+ 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 Curium appeal decision strategy is further shown by the fact that one cannot successfully appeal such a decision to a higher level court.

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 Curium decision that provided no written legal opinion for the appeal case.

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 provides a situation where a higher level appellate court will have no legal opinion to review (because no written legal opinion was provided by the appellate court judges - usually a three judge appellate panel). 

Consequently, the higher level appellate court cannot have a legal basis to disagree with the lower appellate court's legal opinion for their appeal court decision because the lower appellate panel did not identify the legal basis for their appeal court decision for the case. 

Any fair-minded person can easily see that this situation opens the door wide open for unfair and unethical appeal decisions that can be extremely corrupt. 
Extensive legal research by Lon showed that Affirmed, Per Curium  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. 
Lon's numerous appeal cases showed conclusively 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 situation is self-serving judicial corruption at its worst.  His extensive legal research into hundreds of appeal case decisions (many thousand hours of research) found that this type of appeal decision is 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 anywhere in the United States, any time judges decided to manipulate the outcome of cases to suit their own personal objectives  (trial courts and/or appellate courts).  

Lon's litigation experiences proved conclusively that trial court judges would ignore the valid evidence presented in the case and/or would ignore the relevant controlling legal standards presented by the litigants regarding the issues in dispute in the trial court case (as presented in the plaintiff's pleadings).  
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 regarding the issues in dispute in the trial court case. 
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 actions 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 "they" choose 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 seeach time that Lon exposed any of the unfair, unethical judicial actions that had been taken against him by a former judge. 

Three judges were recused/removed from the litigation process due to Lon's detailed legal brief reports about the demonstrated unfair, unethical judicial actions against non-resident litigant Lon Willoughby. 
It is very important to understand that no punishment actions were taken against any of the judges who were removed from the litigation case due to unfair, unethical, criminal-minded judicial actions against Lon.     
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 (in a civil trial) or convict an innocent person (in a criminal trial) any time the "opposing" attorneys collusively agree to go along with such an unfair, unethical, criminal scheme. 

Lon's extensive responsible and diligent 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 to favor the opposing 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" conclusively 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 initial litigation issues and then also review all litigation actions that have occurred in the case.  (At 100 to 500 $/hour)

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 for a case against 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 a powerful adversary (unfair and unethical judge).

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 Integrity Within America's Judicial Systems.  

The situations reported above illustrate the great need for a company like Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.  (Now named Legal Shield)  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 Co-trustee Lonnie Willoughby could have found a courageous trial lawyer with sufficient integrity to help him defend himself in the distant state court during 1989, the lawyer could have won that case easily - because the plaintiff did not have a legitimate basis for the lawsuit against him.

Winning the case at that point would have enabled Lon Willoughby 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 exposing judicial corruption 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 (he received dozens of these legal document), or he was required to make another automobile trip to the distant state (900 miles round trip distance - he had to make nine of those trips) .  

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 unfair, unethical judicial process - the litigant will pay whatever his attorney demands, no matter how deficient their "legal services" were, or they can easily cause the complaining litigant to be subjected to an extremely corrupt judicial system, as Lon's report herein illustrates in substantial detail. 

Those situations caused Lon to be subjected to many years of very expensive litigation but he was determined to expose the extremely unfair, unethical, and outrageously corrupt judicial system in the distant state.

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 to after many years of litigation.  

Lon was repeatedly subjected to ruthless and malicious harassment, intimidation, coercion, and persecution by a successive series of unfair, unethical, and corrupt-minded judges (starting with the initial litigation conducted in 1989). 

Consequently, Lon can see the great need for the Provider Law Firm concept that has been established by Pre-Paid Legal Services.  
The Legal Shield Family Membership plan that is available today, with the Provider Law Firm support, was not available to Lon Willoughby in 1989, and it was not available to him for many years thereafter.  If Lon could have had access to a PPL provider law firm staff attorney to represent him in the 1989 litigation, he would likely have won the case during 1989.  He could have therefore avoided the very expensive and extremely frustrating series of extensive legal experiences reported herein. 

As you can see from Lon's report about his litigation experiences, having access to the current Legal Shield Provider Law Firm type membership could have made a tremendous difference in Lon's life. The litigation process wreaked his career from 3/1989 to the year 2014. (about 25 years)  And it will obviously affect the rest of his life due to all of the adverse affects on his life and his mutilated career and the tremendous adverse financial effects.
Lon understands that Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. (now named Legal Shield) has made a lot of progress in recent years and can provide much better access to competent legal services for its members than in the past by developing the provider law firm concept - this was a big advancement forward in this regard.

More Than 1.5 Million 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 Legal Shield (Pre-Paid Legal Services) family in the United States and Canada. Some states have 20,000+ 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 type of legal issue; this exceptionally valuable legal service is usually 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 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 Legal Shield Online Resource Center
As a member of Legal Shield, 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.Legal Shield.com links on the next page).

Members of Legal Shield can enjoy the benefits that their membership contract provides for their resident 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 the membership, but a member 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. Legal Shield 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 of Health 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 email ABC of Health with questions or comments about this membership service while you are still connected to the linked Legal Shield Website. You my also use your Back Function control to come back to this website and then use the convenient email link to communicate with ABC of Health
Begin your visit of our Legal Shield information Website and view the Movie or the HTML Presentation by clicking on the Legal Shield link below. This link will connect you to ABC's Legal Shield 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 Legal Shield 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 Legal Shield presentations available herein, and then take appropriate actions to obtain your Legal Shield membership as quickly as possible.

Each day that you are actively involved with life usually presents risks of getting into serious situations that might require the need for competent, aggressive legal services from a good lawyer. A PPL membership can help you obtain Protection + Security + Peace of Mind for less than 90 cents per day.

The remarkable membership can help one with practically any legal services that one might need. Lon knows that this is an incredible value and hopes that every responsible adult in America will have an opportunity to get this remarkable membership before they get into serious trouble that requires the services of a good trial lawyer.

Legal Shield Business Opportunity: You may know someone who might like to learn about a special business opportunity that is available for sharing remarkable membership options with other people.  You can click on the special web site link below to get more information about this special opportunity.

We need many more Independent Representatives throughout America and Canada who will help us share the good news about Legal Shield Legal Service memberships with individuals, families, school teachers, policemen, commercial drivers, and businesses, as appropriate for the respective state or province.

Please provide this website address to anyone who might be interested in reviewing this business opportunity.  They can then visit this website to get the information needed to make an evaluation of this very special opportunity. 


If you have questions or simply want additional information about this business opportunity, please contact Lon Willoughby at ABC's of Health via the convenient email link below. We have audiotapes, videotapes, brochures, sample membership contracts, etc. that we can provide to people who have an interest in evaluating this outstanding business opportunity.
Important Note for AOL or CompuServe Members
You may have difficulty connecting to the linked Legal Shield Websites using either of these Internet Service Providers, depending upon the program version you are using.

If you do not have the latest program, you may not be able to utilize the JAVA script contained in the sophisticated Legal Shield Website. If connection problems occur, try connecting with Internet Explorer using the following procedure:
1. Minimize your AOL or CompuServe program by clicking on the Minimize Window selection [ - ] in the upper right corner of your computer screen. This should enable your desktop to appear on your computer screen.

2. Click on the Internet Explorer (IE) icon so you can use IE to search for the Pre-Paid Legal web site.

3. Insert this address:   http://www.LegalShield.com/info/abcofhealth
4. Select Go to find ABC's Legal Shield Information Website.
NOTE:  Internet Explorer (IE) works well with the JAVA script found in the Legal Shield website.


Helpful Information

This website is viewed best with Arial Font - Medium Size (10). You may be able to select parameters on your browser by using View (set text size) and Tools (Internet Options - select Font and Set Font Size).

Customers and Clients:  We would like to get email from you that expresses how you feel about the very important and valuable natural healthcare concepts that we have presented in this Website.  

Our healthcare concepts can help you learn how to take much better care of your precious natural healthcare assets for the rest of your life. 

Visit our Comments and Reviews department and use the convenient Email Form to send us a quick and easy Email that expresses your helpful constructive comments and suggestions.

Visitors:  If you appreciate the valuable natural healthcare and wellness concepts presented for visitors at this Website, it will be helpful to us if you will visit our Comments and Reviews department and use the convenient E-mail Form provided there to send us a quick and easy E-mail that expresses your feelings about the very important and valuable natural healthcare and wellness concepts presented at this Website.

   Home | About ABC | Contact ABC | Health Care Education Programs | Consultations |

 Vital Health Care Concepts | Comments and Reviews |

You may also review the Internet information listed below:

NS Health Products | Justice and Legal Shield Info |

To Communicate with ABC, please select the Contact ABC link above.

Copyright © 2011 - 2022 ABC's of Health, Inc.
All rights reserved.

This department was updated on October 22, 2022.