Who Is the Real Worcester County Commissioner Joshua Nordstrom and is Integrity Important?

The Watchguards are compelled to report on the court history of this sitting Commissioner in Worcester County, mainly due to the fact that even Worcester County showed partiality when it tried to cover for Nordstrom by not posting his case on the Court docket as it had with citizens that had cases on the same day. Investigators went to the courthouse the day of the Protective Order hearing for the Domestic Violence complaint against Nordstrom. Aside from the video below, investigators were also able to obtain public records of his past infractions with the law and his previous marriage and request for divorce under similar circumstances as his case that day.

Establishing the record:

8/18/2020- Complaint for Divorce/Amended Complaint for Divorce.

• Adultery– “Diverse times and dates since marriage he engaged in an adulterous affair (to be named at trial).

• “No hope or expectation of reconciliation”.

• Constructive Desertion– Defendant abandoned and deserted plaintiff.

• “Defendants cruel and vicious conduct made marital relationship impossible without plaintiff losing her health, safety and self-respect”.

• Why was this complaint for divorce made to be amended before granted and prior to court date?

9/19/2022- Protective Order for Domestic Violence (current live in girlfriend)

• Grounds per judge- “assault in any degree“, “false imprisonment“.

• Alleged in complaint for protective order.

• “Relief for self and minor child”.

• 9/18/2022- committed following acts of abuse: “shoving, threats of violence, mental injury of a child, detaining against will, routinely preventing her from leaving by blocking doorway and grabbing arms to prevent her from leaving resulting in scratches and bruising”.

According to documents defendants Ht-6′ 7″ wt- 450 lbs, Plaintiffs Ht- 5′ 4″ wt- 115 lbs:

Defendant (Nordstrom) attempted to have Protective Order placed against Plaintiff. He alleges:

• “Theft, destruction of property, threats of harm, tampering with government property”.

• Details: “Computer and tablet stolen, property removed from vehicle and destroyed, threats of claiming physical harm, threats of destroying reputation and affecting election”.

His request was denied due to “Petitioner could not meet burden of proof”.

More