Justice and Legal Shield Info
Judicial Corruption Exposed - Very Important Info
OUR ULTIMATE LEGAL SYSTEM GOAL:
FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUSTICE FOR ALL
Many people would be surprised to learn that the average adult in America is much more likely to need legal services than to need hospital care, during 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
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.
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'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'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).
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).
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.
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.
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?
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 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).
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 was appalled, dismayed, and very frustrated by the extremely unfair, unethical, and outrageously false prejudicial statements about him in the Final Judgment.
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.
The defense attorney also knew, or should have known, that an appellate court will not reverse a trial judge's decision regarding such objections.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Impartial Manner Toward Pro Se 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
http://www.LegalShield.com/go/abcofhealth
2. Click on the Internet Explorer (IE) icon so you can use IE to search for the Pre-Paid Legal web site.
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.