Complaints of misconduct against West Columbia-Cayce Magistrates Morgan and Johnson

Update 11/3/21:When the Nettles stated in their complaint that the tree was"left partially standing" it was quite an understatement. The tree was "left partially standing" over six feet high and the Nettles, realizing a tree so conspicuously present that they claimed had been removed exposed their entire case as nothing more than a pack of lies intended to damage my reputatiuon, removed what remained of the tree themselves. I hope Mike Nettles' lack of honesty under oath is not typical of upper-echelon employees who work at International Paper. Here is a copy of the complaints I filed. So far, the agecy responsiblie for investigating such complaints has not even ackowledged reciept of my complaints. Ever since I tried to publish a link to this blog post on Twitter, the following message pops up: "Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot." This has been going on for several weeks, ever since I first tried to publish a link to this blog post on Twitter. Is International Paper blocking my efforts to publish on Twitter? uring court, Magistrate Morgan came up with a repulsive little charrade pretending not to hear what I said, when in fact Magistrate Morgan heard what I said all too well. I said the limbs on the Nettles' trees were too high for me to reach, and I couldn't locate anyone with a hdraulic lift that was willing to trim the Nettles' trees. I immediately told Magistrate Morgan that I hqad eloborated on my remarks in a blog post and submitted a copy of that post to him, so he had a copy of the blog post him a copy of that post. At least Magistrate Morgan's repulsive little charrade most certainly should win him some points with International Paper. Before Magistrate Morgan announced his decision in my case, he took a lengthy recess, so he certainly had more than enough time to read my blog post.Here is a link to my blog post: https://askparris.blogspot.com/2021/03/im-being-baited-to-talk-to-one-of.html I now wonder if Magistrate Morgan even bothered to read my blog post. His repulsive little charrade was a blatant attempt to avoid addressing the issues I raise in my blog post.I have included a copy of that blog post along with these complaints. See especially my 10/28 update. I have attached a copy of that blog post to this complaint. See especially my 10/28/20 update. I also showed him photograps of the Nettles' tree limbs extending far onto my property, which Magistrate Morgan simply ignored. Then again, why sould Magistrate Morgan pay the situation any attention when he isn't the one responsible for cleaning up the messs from the Nettles' tree limbs. At least Magistrate Morgan's repulsive little charrade should win him some points with International Paper and the South Carolina Legislaure. I have discussed my "realtionship" wih the South Carolina Legislature at the end of these complaints. I don't think either one of these magistrates(!) knows the proper definition of the word "stalking," properly defined as "stealthily following someone around." If nether one of them knows the proper definition of stalking it should surprise nobody considering South Carolina's exceedingly low level of education. I think if either one of them knows the proper definition of "stalking," they would have most certainly asked the Nettles if they at any time summoned the police for any alleged stalking. As far back as Judge Wapner of "The Peoples' Court, Judge Judy and Judge Joe Brown, each of these judges asked the plaintiffs 99% of the time, if they filed a police report. Not to ask such a question confirms a lack of interest in ascertaining the facts of my case, especially in a case such as mine, where the plaintiffs are accusing someone of stalking and asking for a restraining order. Magistrate Morgan refused to grant the plaintiffs' first request for a restraing order, but Magistrate Johnson granted the plaintiffs' second request for a restraining order. Shortly before Mrs. Nettles filed her lawsuite, she summoned the police because I yelled at her dog, using 911 to do so. Mrs Nettles always has a cell phone nearby. Thus we are left with what must suerely be the most remarkable case in the practice of jurisprudence: a case where a plaintiff summoned the police because someone yelled at her dog, but negctled to do so whene someone allegdly stalked her. For 75 years, I have been an exemplary citizen and most certainly have never stalked or harassed anyone.I haven't even had a speeding ticket in ten years. Ten of my 75 years were spent as a full-time caregiver for my dad, who had Alzheimer's. My dad died at home at age 93. There is absolutely nothing in my background consistent with someone who would stalk anyone.So how does anyone with an interest in my case know that I never stalked Mrs. Nettles? Simply because she at no time summoned the police. I most certainly was never approached by police, who questioned me about stalking. I think taxpaying South Carolininians are entitled to have competent magistrates overseeing small clims court, where people depend on magistrates to ask appropriate questions.I could have asked the question myself, but I may be excused for not doing so, on the basis that I am not used to arguing a case in court, and was trying to save $2,000 in attorny fe4es, which is, after all in keeping with the philosphy of small claims court. I think any adult who exhibts such behavior has mental health issues far exceeding the limits of these complaints. I also think any man who would marry a woman capable of pulling such a stunt has mental health issues of his own to deal with. If South Carolina's judicial system wants to trust such people to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so be it. Last but far from least, I am cognizant of the fact that in South Carolina, magistrates are appointed by the governor for four-year terms, with advice and consent from the Senate, a practice which invites uncertainty in the fairness of South Carolina's judicial system and that I have offended the governor, the senate, aand the entire SC legislature by exposing South Carolina's ten year time limit on wills, something the legislatuors have been determined to keep quiet. Was this "payback time" for someone who offended the governor and the Senate? That's certainly the way it looks. I protested in front of "my" senator's (Nikkie Setzler's probate-dealing law firm for many hours directing motoists to my blog, titled "End the Probate Racket in South Carona. I also protestes in front of the South Carolina statehouse for many hours directing motorists to my blog, titled, "End the probate racket in South Carolina I tweeted links to my blog, titled, "End the probate racket in South Carolina, warning South Carolinians about the legislature's oh-so-quietly kept secret that there is a ten year time limit on wills, taking effect ten years after the deceased dies, a policy which costs heirs at least an extra $1,800 in attorney fees and often more. I've also tweeted links to my blog to attorney Henry McMaster. America is nothing more than a garbage pit of corruption; a sleazy little rat-hole run by crooked, filthy-rich, too-big-to-fail corporations. Indeed, South Carolina's legislature is arguably the most corrupt legislature in the country. If South Carolinians are abysimally stupid enough to allow a bunch of bought-off politicians to have a major role in appointing magistrates, so be it. The office of magistrate should be elective, not by appointment. At least Magistrate Morgan's repulsive little charrade should win him some points with International Paper and the South Carolina legislature. I'm sure Mike Nettles has already informed the upper-echelon folks at Internatioal Paper about Magistrate Morgan's repulsive liittle charrade.It's a crying shame when a court rules that corporate intersts are above the law.