FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media inquiries: Contact information available through federal court record

Case No. 4:18-cv-00187-D, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina

TEN-TIME COMBAT-DEPLOYED U.S. ARMY MAJOR IMPRISONED

FOR TELLING THE TRUTH IN NORTH CAROLINA COURTROOM

27-Year Pattern of Federal Military Protection Violations Exposed

in Carteret County Child Support Case Against Decorated Combat Veteran

Formal Judicial Misconduct Complaints Filed Against Seven Judges

Bar Complaints Seeking Disbarment Filed Against Five Attorneys

Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Refiled in Eastern District of North Carolina

Criminal Referral to U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Pending

NORTH CAROLINA — July 2026 — A retired United States Army Major who served ten combat deployments and is 100% service-connected disabled with severe PTSD is fighting back after spending 27 years in a North Carolina court system that never once applied the federal protections Congress enacted to shield soldiers from civil abuse while they serve their country.

MAJ (RET) Hutchinson enlisted in the United States Army on March 17, 1994. Over the next 25 years, he deployed to combat zones ten times — including Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and two overseas tours in Germany. He rose to the rank of Major. He is highly decorated. He retired in August 2019 with a 100% service-connected disability rating for severe PTSD caused by his combat service.

While MAJ (RET) Hutchinson was serving his country, a North Carolina court system was systematically violating every federal protection Congress wrote to prevent exactly what happened to him.

North Carolina — A Military State That Failed Its Own: North Carolina is home to over 615,000 veterans — the 8th largest veteran population in the nation — and ranks fourth nationally in active-duty military population. The state hosts some of the largest military installations in the world including Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in Carteret County, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. The federal government invested over $12 billion in North Carolina veterans in fiscal year 2023 alone. Thirty-seven percent of North Carolina veterans have service-connected disabilities. Yet in Carteret County — home to MCAS Cherry Point and surrounded by military families — a state court system ignored every mandatory federal protection Congress enacted to shield those same servicemembers from civil abuse for 27 years.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is not a suggestion. It is federal law enacted under Congress’s Article I, Section 8 war powers authority. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution — Article VI, Sections 2 and 3 — makes it the supreme law of the land, binding on every state court judge, every clerk, and every enforcement officer in the nation. According to the filed complaints, the Carteret County court system treated these mandatory federal protections as if they did not exist — while operating in the shadow of one of America’s largest Marine Corps air stations, surrounded by the very military families Congress wrote the law to protect.

This case raises a question that extends far beyond one veteran and one courthouse: if a ten-time combat-deployed Army Major with a documented military record can be ambushed, coerced, defaulted while deployed at war, and imprisoned for telling the truth — all without a single SCRA protection ever being applied — what is happening to the thousands of junior enlisted servicemembers and their families who pass through North Carolina’s Title IV-D child support enforcement system every year without the resources to fight back?

The Jurisdiction North Carolina Did Not Want to Acknowledge

At the heart of Hutchinson’s case is a jurisdictional fact that the Carteret County court system systematically avoided for 27 years: when the proceedings were initiated in February 1999, Hutchinson was stationed overseas on military orders with orders transitioning to Fort Drum, New York. He had not resided in North Carolina since March 17, 1994 — the day he enlisted. Under military law, a servicemember’s duty station establishes legal presence. New York — not North Carolina — was the state with jurisdiction over Hutchinson at the time the case was filed.

According to the filed complaints, the Carteret County court system treated his military service as if it were a regular civilian job — as if being stationed at Fort Drum was a commuting choice rather than a federal military assignment. By reducing his military orders to the equivalent of an out-of-state employment arrangement, the court was able to claim North Carolina jurisdiction while ignoring the federal protections that military assignment triggers.

This distinction matters because it reveals what Hutchinson describes as a systematic strategy: avoid acknowledging the federal nature of military service, contain the case within state law, and prevent the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act from ever being triggered. His own complaint — filed by Valentine — acknowledged he was military in one paragraph while claiming North Carolina residency in another. His own attorney — Lassiter — acknowledged his New York military assignment while simultaneously affirming exclusive North Carolina jurisdiction. The pattern, according to Hutchinson, was consistent and deliberate: use military status when it helped the narrative and suppress it when it would trigger protections.

Had the case been filed in New York — where Hutchinson was actually stationed — or had North Carolina acknowledged that military orders are federal assignments carrying SCRA protections, the last 27 years would not have happened. Every order, every garnishment, every contempt proceeding, and every hour of imprisonment traces back to a single decision: to treat a soldier’s military service as if it did not matter.

Throughout the 27-year enforcement, MAJ (RET) Hutchinson was required to fly back from overseas deployments or drive anywhere from ten to fifteen hours each way to attend court appearances in Carteret County, North Carolina — a county where he has never lived — not one day. The court never considered the burden of requiring a deployed servicemember to travel thousands of miles to appear in proceedings built on a void jurisdictional foundation. When MAJ (RET) Hutchinson could not physically appear due to active military deployment, the court entered defaults against him. When he requested to appear by telephone while deployed overseas, the court denied the request. The system was designed so that he could not win — appear and submit to void jurisdiction, or fail to appear and be defaulted. Either way, the enforcement continued.

He Never Lived in Carteret County — Not One Day

A critical fact that the court system concealed for 27 years: MAJ (RET) Hutchinson never lived in Carteret County. Not one day. He grew up in Craven County — a neighboring county — and left North Carolina entirely on March 17, 1994 when he enlisted. The entire 27-year case was prosecuted in Carteret County District Court based on the false claim that he was a Carteret County resident. He was not. He never was. The addresses listed in the court filings — including one that does not exist — were in a county where he never resided.

According to the filed complaints, his own attorney — Andy Lassiter — affirmed these false Carteret County connections in verified court filings, claiming Hutchinson had significant ties to North Carolina and that no other state had jurisdiction. Lassiter made these representations while simultaneously acknowledging in the same document that Hutchinson was stationed in New York with the United States Army. According to the filed complaints, Lassiter was simultaneously contracted with the very enforcement agency prosecuting the case against his own client — sweet words and promises of representation masking actions that consistently produced results favorable to the enforcement system and devastating to the servicemember who trusted him.

The financial records tell their own story. Based on calculations in the filed complaints, MAJ (RET) Hutchinson overpaid the court-filed arrearage total by more than $9,000 — money that was garnished from his military pay beyond what was owed and never disclosed or returned to him. He was not a deadbeat parent avoiding his obligations. He was a combat veteran whose military pay was being garnished under void orders while he was deployed at war — and they took more than they were entitled to and concealed the overpayment.

He Never Needed a Court Order to Take Care of His Family

The premise of the entire 27-year enforcement was that MAJ (RET) Hutchinson abandoned his family and refused to provide support. According to the filed complaints and financial records, the opposite is true. Throughout his military service, Hutchinson maintained voluntary financial allotments of $141, $163.50, and later $300 per month directly supporting his child and former spouse. His former spouse maintained continuous, uninterrupted access to his military pay accounts, bank accounts, and financial cards. He financed a vehicle for her to build her credit and independence. He never needed a court to tell him to take care of his family — he was already doing it voluntarily while serving his country overseas.

The filed complaints describe a case driven not by a father’s failure to provide but by greed and retaliation — a former spouse who weaponized the Title IV-D child support enforcement system through attorneys willing to manufacture jurisdiction, fabricate abandonment claims, and conceal military protections to keep the enforcement machine running. The system was not protecting a child. The system was exploiting a deployed servicemember — garnishing his military pay under void orders, levying his military credit union account while he was in Kuwait, and imprisoning him when he challenged it. The financial records show he overpaid by more than $9,000. The enforcement system took more than it was owed and concealed the overpayment. This was never about child support. It was about control, greed, and institutional corruption.

The Case That Started It All — February 1999

The attorney’s complaint told the court two things that cannot both be true — in the same sworn document filed with the court. Paragraph 2 told the court that MAJ (RET) Hutchinson was a resident of Carteret County, North Carolina — present in the county, living with his family. Paragraph 18 told the court that he was currently stationed with the United States Army in the state of New York. The judge signed an emergency ex parte order the next day. His own Finding of Fact stated that MAJ (RET) Hutchinson was ‘currently’ in Carteret County ‘while on leave from his military obligations.’ The truth: he was deployed overseas on military orders. He was not in Carteret County. He was not in North Carolina. He was not in the United States. Both the complaint and the court order claimed he was currently present in a county and a state he had not lived in since 1994 — while he was stationed on another continent. That is not a legal dispute. That is a fabrication. And every order entered for the next 27 years was built on it.

The complaint was accompanied by an affidavit containing two different addresses for Hutchinson — one in Havelock, NC and one in Beaufort, NC. According to the filed complaints, one of those addresses does not exist. His actual location: stationed overseas on military orders, outside the continental United States. The proceedings were filed in Carteret County — home to Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point — a county whose economy and population are deeply intertwined with the military community the SCRA was written to protect.

A judge signed an emergency custody order the next day. His own finding of fact acknowledged Hutchinson was an active duty Army servicemember. Despite that acknowledgment, not one mandatory protection under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act was applied — no military status affidavit, no appointed counsel, no protective bond, no stay of proceedings. These protections are not optional. They are federal law, required by Congress specifically to protect soldiers from civil prejudice while they serve.

Coerced at Gunpoint of His Career — October 1999

Eight months later, Hutchinson’s own attorney threatened to contact his military chain of command and have him jailed if he refused to sign an adverse court order. Hutchinson — an active duty servicemember whose career was on the line — signed under duress in open court. That coerced order locked him into a decade of additional enforcement.

Deployed to War, Defaulted in Court — 2009

In 2009, while Hutchinson was actively deployed at war, a second child support default judgment was entered against him. He was at war. He had no notice. He had no attorney. Nine separate violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act were committed in a single proceeding — the second time the same violations had been committed in the same case.

The court then began garnishing his military pay through the Defense Finance and Accounting Service — DFAS — which exclusively processes military pay. That garnishment ran for 104 months, totaling over $41,000 — including what is identified as a concealed overpayment of more than $9,000 that was never disclosed to him.

Imprisoned for Telling the Truth — March 2017

On March 16, 2017, Hutchinson appeared in Carteret County District Court for an SCRA hearing. That morning, his attorney withdrew without explanation — leaving him to face the hearing alone. The judge then found Hutchinson in criminal contempt for what the order described as ‘misleading the court.’ According to the filed complaints, that contempt ground does not appear in the exclusive statutory list of direct criminal contempt grounds under North Carolina law.

Hutchinson was sentenced to 30 days. He served 20 — 480 hours in the Carteret County jail. At the time, he was still under military medical jurisdiction on the Temporary Disability Retired List. He missed military medical appointments. He was 100% disabled with severe PTSD.

According to his filed complaints, during his incarceration he received no accommodations for his documented disabilities, was denied faith-based religious services, was denied access to the law library, sustained a sleeping injury from inadequate conditions, and was administered medication that caused adverse effects lasting 68 days after his release.

What He Says They Never Did — Not Once in 27 Years

At the center of Hutchinson’s case is a straightforward legal claim: the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act requires courts to take specific, mandatory steps before entering orders against servicemembers. According to the court record and the federal filings, none of these steps were taken at any point in the 27-year history of his case:

• No military status affidavit was ever filed — as required by federal law
• No attorney was ever appointed to represent him — as required by federal law
• No protective bond was ever set — as required by federal law
• No stay of proceedings was ever granted — as required by federal law
• No mandatory reopening was ever granted — as required by federal law

In three separate motions to dismiss filed in the prior federal case, no defendant ever argued that these protections were actually applied. Their defenses focused on procedural issues — service of process, statute of limitations, judicial immunity — but none addressed whether the SCRA was complied with.

The Courts Have Already Spoken — Twice

Two North Carolina court decisions add significant weight to MAJ (RET) Hutchinson’s claims. In State v. Hardy, No. 23-421 (N.C. Ct. App. July 2, 2024), the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed a direct criminal contempt order entered by the same Judge Clinton D. Rowe who imprisoned MAJ (RET) Hutchinson. In Hardy, Rowe held a defendant in criminal contempt for statements made in court and sentenced him to 30 days — the identical sentence he imposed on MAJ (RET) Hutchinson. The Court of Appeals found the defendant’s acts were not willful, did not impair or interrupt proceedings, and that Rowe’s contempt order was entered in error. Same judge. Same sentence. Same pattern of punishing speech rather than disruptive conduct. Already reversed on appeal.

Additionally, in In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge (Foster v. Foster), the North Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimanded District Court Judge Brenda G. Branch for ignoring SCRA protections in a family law case involving an active duty servicemember. The servicemember requested a mandatory stay. His commanding officer confirmed his critical military duties. Judge Branch ignored the request and proceeded. The Judicial Standards Commission investigated and the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of misconduct — establishing that ignoring SCRA protections constitutes conduct that brings the judicial office into disrepute. If a single failure to grant one stay warranted public reprimand, the systematic 27-year refusal to apply any SCRA protection raises questions about what level of accountability is appropriate for the judges in MAJ (RET) Hutchinson’s case.

The Current Fight — Every Door Locked

Hutchinson has now filed formal judicial misconduct complaints against seven judges with the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission and formal bar complaints against five attorneys with the North Carolina State Bar. He has refiled his federal civil rights lawsuit in the Eastern District of North Carolina seeking in excess of $61 million in statutory damages plus punitive damages and a jury trial.

In the state court, Chief District Court Judge Walter Mills — one of the judges named in Hutchinson’s complaints — recused himself from the case in June 2026. Hutchinson then discovered that the Senior Resident Superior Court Judge for the district is Clinton D. Rowe — the same judge who imprisoned him in 2017. According to the filed complaints, every judge, every clerk, and every administrator in the district has either participated in the proceedings or has a conflict of interest preventing neutral adjudication.

Hutchinson has petitioned the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina to assign an independent, out-of-district judge. The local court manager responded by directing him to schedule before local judges — a directive Hutchinson’s filed Notice of Jurisdictional Freeze argues is prohibited by North Carolina law while a venue motion is pending.

Where Is the Accountability?

MAJ (RET) Hutchinson is a combat veteran who served this nation ten times in harm’s way. He came home and was ambushed by a court system that manufactured jurisdiction in a county where he never lived, concealed his military status to avoid federal protections, coerced him through his own attorney, defaulted him while he was at war, garnished his military pay beyond what was owed and concealed the overpayment, and imprisoned him for telling the truth about all of it.

Craven mainly and Carteret County is home to Marines stationed at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point. Thousands of military families pass through its courts every year. If a ten-time combat-deployed Army Major with the resources and determination to fight for 27 years can be treated this way — how many junior enlisted servicemembers, how many military spouses, how many young soldiers have been ground through this same system without anyone ever knowing? How many other veterans has this county’s Title IV-D enforcement machine processed without ever applying a single SCRA protection? The answer to that question requires an investigation that goes far beyond one case.

The Numbers

• 27 years of enforcement under orders Hutchinson claims are void
• 10 combat deployments during the period of enforcement
• 100% disability rating for service-connected PTSD
• 480 hours of wrongful imprisonment in 2017
• 104 months of military pay garnishment through DFAS
• $41,704 garnished from military pay including alleged $9,044 concealed overpayment
• $26,956 levied from Navy Federal Credit Union military banking account while deployed
• 7 judges named in judicial misconduct complaints
• 5 attorneys named in bar complaints — two seeking disbarment
• $61+ million in statutory damages claimed in federal lawsuit
• 0 mandatory SCRA protections applied in 27 years — according to the court record

According to the filed complaints, jail medical staff requested MAJ (RET) Hutchinson’s VA medical information — not to provide him care, but to bill the VA for his treatment during a wrongful incarceration the state itself caused. The jail knew about his PTSD. They knew he was a 100% disabled combat veteran. They did not treat his PTSD or his other service-connected conditions. They denied him access to faith-based religious services. They denied him access to the law library — preventing him from defending himself while imprisoned for the act of defending himself. They administered medication that caused him to be unable to perform sexually for 68 days after release — medication given without his informed consent.

What MAJ (RET) Hutchinson Says

“I served this nation through ten combat deployments. I went through sniper fire, mines, bombs, and attacks. I lost fellow servicemen — good men and women who gave everything. I came home 100% disabled with severe PTSD from that service. And while I was overseas defending this country, a court system back home was manufacturing jurisdiction in a county where I never lived, exploiting my military duty to take advantage of me, and concealing every federal protection Congress wrote to keep this from happening.”

“What they did is concealment — egregious, deliberate concealment — against a combat veteran who gave them the freedom they used to lie, cover up, and exploit my service. They threw their wickedness in my face and continued it further for 27 years. I was imprisoned for telling the truth about it. The judge who imprisoned me is now the senior judge in the same district where my case is pending.”

“I have to ask — do the county representatives, the state representatives, the district attorney, the voters of Carteret County know about this? Do they know how their elected judges and court officials treat combat veterans? Do the voters know that the people they elected have contempt for the servicemembers stationed in their towns, cities, and counties and across North Carolina? That instead of protecting the safeguards Congress wrote for veterans, they exploited and violated every single one?”

“All I am asking for is what every American is entitled to — a proper and fair day in court before a neutral judge. That should not be this hard for a man who survived sniper fire, mines, bombs, and attacks across ten combat deployments. The people need to know what they did.”

Case References:

• State: File No. 99-CVD-142, Carteret County District Court, Beaufort, NC
• Federal: Case No. 4:18-cv-00187-D, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina

Documents Available Upon Request:

• Federal Amended Complaint with exhibits
• Judicial misconduct complaints (7)
• Bar complaints (5)
• Notice of Jurisdictional Freeze
• Letter Brief to AOC and Chief Justice of NC Supreme Court
• Demand notices (Phase 1 and Phase 2)
• Rule 60 Motion filed May 27, 2026

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media inquiries Such as interviews and questions regarding this matter may be directed through the public court record which holds direct contact.

Federal Case No. 4:18-cv-00187-D — U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina

State File No. 99-CVD-142 — Carteret County District Court, Beaufort, North Carolina

Editor’s Note: The prior federal case (4:18-cv-00187-D) was dismissed without prejudice on October 8, 2025 — primarily on grounds of insufficient service of process. The case is being refiled with proper service. The irony is not lost on MAJ (RET) Hutchinson: a federal court dismissed his civil rights case for defective service of process while the entire 27-year state court case that injured him was itself built on defective service of process — service directed to fictitious addresses, in a county where he never lived, against a servicemember stationed overseas on military orders. The state court never questioned its own defective service. The federal court dismissed the veteran’s case for the same procedural defect the state court committed against him. The refiled federal complaint addresses all service issues and is pending.

All referenced documents Maybe available upon request through the court record.