Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies


ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
1:15-cv-00044 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Todd W. Plaintiff
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
Western District of North Carolina
Date Filed: 
Mar 2 2015

The Plaintiff, Todd Wilson Plaintiff, in Pro Se, upon his respective oath, complaining of
the Defendants, alleges and states as follows:

1. While the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by Congress in
1990 was to establish a new foundation for disability policy to help end the unjustified segregation
and exclusion of persons with disabilities from the mainstream of American life.
2. Today, not only do individuals with a mental disability suffer from the affliction of
their illness but also from the stigma, which surrounds their illness. Stigma, which robs them of
viable opportunities in housing, employment, education and healthcare, meaningful access to our
judicial system and intimate relationships. In some cases, even denies them the right to vote, obtain
a driver’s license, or maintain child custody. This form of public stigmatization and discriminatory
treatment of the mentally ill is a social injustice.
3. Today, mental illness afflicts hundreds of millions of people around the world. In
the United States alone approximately 42.5 million Americans suffer from a mental illness, of
which nearly 9.3 million of those individuals suffer from a “serious mental illness,” as classified
by the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V.)l
4. At the heart of this lawsuit is not just mental illness but any form of disability in
which individuals are routinely discriminated against in both the public and private sector due to
their disability. While the Plaintiff in this case is just of one of 42.5 million Americans who suffer
from a mental illness and one of the 9.3 million who suffer from a “serious mental illness,” defined
by the DSM-V.
5. This lawsuit is about some of America’s most cherished freedoms; the freedom of
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without government interference or encroachment upon
those fundamental rights, in which one specific N.C. Gen. Statute § 35A-1107, which is
unconstitutional as applied to those who are perceived as being mentally ill or mentally challenged
and who are subjected to North Carolina Incompetency and Guardianship laws, digged by
someone filing a petition with the Clerk of Superior Court in any judicial district in North Carolina
which alleges they are incompetent and in need of a guardian.
6. Fortunately, for individuals targeted by someone claiming they are unfit or without
a grasp of reality or lacking in a meaningful way to communicate their needs. A guardian can be a
blessing for that individual, their family and friends, and the community. However, even with a
remote possibility that such a petition for adjudication of incompetence can be utilized with evil
motions and ill-intent, the North Carolina General Assembly has failed to put adequate safeguards
in place to protect individuals subjected to such a proceeding as was the case with the Plaintiff.
7. While it is unfortunate, the Defendants in this case allowed the ill feelings towards
the Plaintiff interfere in their fiduciary duties to protect the Plaintiff best interest. The Defendants
1 The DSM is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United
hereto, only focus what on the Plaintiffs past immoralities and villainous modus operandi, which
deemed him a social deviant, unworthy of his federally protected rights embedded within the
Constitution of the United States, though to be afforded to all men, women and children.
8. While American history and tradition, embodied in the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution protects individuals from such overbearing and oppressive
governmental action, including the action of state actors against citizens of their own state, who
under the color of state law encroach of federally protected rights.
9. It is on this deepest level the Plaintiff brings this action in the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina to protect the most fundamental rights citizens of
this great nation have. Regardless of disability or controversy or social stature. The Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is a clause,
which took effect in 1868, which provides that no state shall deny to any person within its
jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws," regardless of any scandalous or iniquitous are
infirmity or social standing about him or her. To secure these rights is to secure the rights of all
the people intended by our founding fathers. If we are once again to have a politics of decency and
generosity, we must cultivate those virtues in every sphere especially within our own judicial
10. While the Plaintiff in this case is no stranger to this Court or to controversy and
who openly admits to the Court and the public that he has harm countless individuals throughout
his life with his villainous endeavors. The Defendants in this complaint, many of whom are officers
of the court. Engaged in such a maleficent of flagrant violations of N.C. General Statutes, and
federal laws. In which their evil motions and ill intent was not solely a “reckless indifference” as
to their egregiousness of their conduct, but, rather many of the Defendant had full knowledge their
own conduct was in fact in violation of federal law, common laws and in some instances criminal
11. The Plaintiff brings this action in part pursuant to the Americans with Disability
Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and other federal statutory rights. The Plaintiff would first content to this
Court the Unconstitutionally ofN.C. Gen. Statute 35A-1107 which flagrantly violations federally
protected constitutional rights. As in the case of the Plaintiff who was harmed due in large to the
unconstitutionally of this statute. The Plaintiff would ask of this Court to examine the
constitutionality ofN.C. Gen. Statute § 35A- 1107. In such ambiguous language and evidence
through the customs, policies and practices of the Clerks of Superior Court throughout North
Carolina who use such ambiguous to class based discriminate against those who are without mean
to hire an attorney or in some causes exercise their own constitutional right of “Self-
12. Under the current North Carolina Incompetency and Guardianship laws. The
Plaintiff, subjected to a petition to adjudicate him incompetent was denied his right to selfrepresentation
by Richard Schumacher, Assistant Clerk of Superior Court for Buncombe at the
and the clerk who was to preside over Plaintiffs competency proceeding.
13. While a petition to declare someone incompetent is a civil matter, the consequences
of being adjudicated incompetent carries the same devastating consequences of that of a criminal
conviction, that often being the loss of life, liberty and property and the pursuant of happiness.
14. As such an individual, protected by the ADA or otherwise. A person subjected to
an incompetency proceeding should not automatically be denied their right of self-representation
without clear- and convincing evidence in a public forum that the individual is unable to
communicated his or her desires to the Court in a logical manner.
15. Plaintiff, in this case is an individual with a disability as defined by the Americans
with Disabilities Act, Title 28 Chapter 1 Part 35-104. As a person with a disability, the Plaintiff is
entitled to all the applicable protections and provisions of the ADA. Nevertheless, Plaintiff denied
his protection provided by the ADA, as it related to his guardianship case. Since Plaintiff was
denied his right to self-representation, absent any tangible supporting evidence that the Plaintiff
was unable or willing to communicate to the Buncombe Clerk’s Office his wishes in a logical
16. It was due to the fact that Plaintiff was denied his right to self-representation by
Schumacher that permitted many of the Defendants in this case to use N.C. Gen. Statute § 35A-
1107 in the implementation of their own scheme. A scheme to depiive the Plaintiff of his property
rights, without notice or opportunity to be heard, and to aid the United States of America in their
two-year criminal investigation into the Plaintiff.
17. Under current N.C. Gen. Statute § 35A-1107, which reads as follows:
Right to counsel or guardian ad litem. The respondent (Plaintiff) is entitled to be
represented by counsel of his own choice or by an appointed guardian ad litem.
Upon filing of the petition, an attorney shall be appointed as guardian ad litem to
represent the respondent unless the respondent retains his own counsel, in which
event the guardian ad litem may be discharged. Appointment and discharge of an
appointed guardian ad litem shall be in accordance with rules adopted by the Office
of Indigent Defense Services.”
18. This statute has been used to abrogate the ADA protections to which Plaintiff was
entitled. Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1 Part 35 addresses
Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in State and Local government services. Plaintiff has
been discriminated against in violation of this provision of the ADA. His rights as an individual
with a disability have been severely impacted by N.C. Gen. Statute § 35A-1107.
19. It is painfully clear that § 35A-1107 runs afoul of the 28 C.F.R. § 35-130 which
states “(a) No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded
from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public
entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity.” The Court which provides a state
government service by refusing to allow Plaintiff to represent himself has deprived him of a benefit
that non-disabled persons automatically receive.
20. The North Carolina legislature has crafted legislation that deprives disabled
individuals of their right to represent themselves in court based solely on their disability as was
the case for the Plaintiff. This disparate treatment is not only discriminatory but can be considered
as unconstitutional because it deprives Plaintiff of his due process rights as granted under the
fourteenth amendment. Further examination of the North Carolina law reveals that not only it is in
conflict with the ADA which is a Federal law that conflict can trigger an argument for preemption.
It is understood that the ADA was drafted to provide protections and decrease discrimination
against persons with a disability, however N.C. Gen. Statute § 35A-1107 has provided a flagrantly
defiant means to discriminate against individuals like the Plaintiff based on their disabilities. This
miscarriage of justice is a travesty certainly not envisioned nor intended by the creators of the
21. Whenever a state law is in serious conflict with a Federal law then the question of
preemption looms very close to the issue. Such is the case with the matter at hand. Plaintiff has
been denied the opportunity to represent himself; a right that is granted nearly all non-disabled
adults based solely on the fact that he is an individual with a disability. Plaintiff contested the
appointment of a court appointed attorney but had been informed he had not choice unless he
wished to hire his own counsel.
22. Absent any proof by the Buncombe Clerk’s Office, that Plaintiff was unable two
adequately protect his own self-interest was to deny him his own self-protection and the reason
the founding fathers make it a constitutional right for one to represent themselves, especially when
one’s life, liberty and property are at risk.
23. N.C. Gen. Statute § 35A-1107 is in essence unconstitutional because it deprives
persons of their right to choose whether they want to have counsel or whether they want to selfrepresent.
Although this law has been customarily used in the state for quite a while it needs to be
changed or abolished because not only does it deprive disabled persons of their rights it is in direct
conflict with Federal laws more specifically the ADA.
24. Lastly, while generally it is beyond the purview of the federal courts to interpret
the ambiguousness of state law, this action will also establish that, due to portions of N.C. Gen.
Statute § 35A, which are ambiguous, allowed for the interpretation that one’s federally protected
constitutional rights be freely violated, without equal protection of the law, applied. The Plaintiff
believes this Court has the purview to interpret such ambiguous laws that led to this complaint.
And, protect any other citizen of United States, who chooses to reside in North Carolina, who
could be harmed by the unconstitutionality of portions of N.C. Gen. Stat. §35A.
25. While North Carolina Courts have refused to follow, or consistently apply the law
as it relates to the Plaintiff, this raises serious due process concerns. However, its failure to protect
the Plaintiffs most basic fundamental rights pushes the due process concerns well beyond the
breaking point, which the Plaintiff feels this Court has jurisdiction.
26. The Plaintiff cannot initiate criminal charges against certain Defendants in this
action for violating federal civil rights statutes. The Plaintiff intends to prove to this Court, certain
Defendants did in fact willfully violate three specific federal civil rights statutes, each punishable
by fines or imprisonment.
27. Many of the Defendants in this complaint while acting under the color of law, and
through a meeting of the minds, with the other Defendants not normally considered State Actors,
availed themselves into the States business for a state sponsored function and thereby became State
Actors, for the purpose of violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. As this case will
demonstrate the Plaintiff has and will put forth special elements establish several meetings of the
mind, which took place over the last thirteen years for one purpose and one purpose only. To act
as judge, jurors and executor towards the Plaintiff. It is the Defendants conduct motivated by evil
motive or intent, which involved the reckless and/or callous indifference to the Plaintiffs federally
protected rights, in addition to violating other common laws of North Carolina and a few specific
federal criminal statutes.
28. While the individually named Defendants, as to their direct involvement in the
alleged wrong doings in this complaint, span over the last thirteen years. It is North Carolina’s
Incompetency and Guardianship Statutes within § 35A, specially § 35A -1107 which violates the
fundamental nondiscrimination mandates of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §
12101 et seq. (ADA) and in paid permitted the wrong alleged within this Complaint.
29. Each of the Defendants specifically named in this complaint had direct and/or
indirect personal knowledge of the ongoing unlawful practices, polices and patterns in the
administering of the statutes under N.C. Gen. Statute § 35 A as they were applied to applied toward
the Plaintiff by the 28th Judicial District of Buncombe County. Yet, each Defendant who had a
duty not just to the Plaintiff, but also to the State of North Carolina under their sworn duties to
uphold the law. Acted with deliberate indifferent in which some of them had a duty to report one
another i.e. attorney reporting another attorney to the North Carolina State Bar for ethical
violations and fraud perpetrated unto the Court by another attorney within this Case.
30. While North Carolina defines "Mental illness" to means an illness that so lessens
the capacity of a person to use self-control, judgment, and discretion in the conduct of the person's
affairs and social relations as to make it necessary or advisable for the person to be under treatment,
care, supervision, guidance, or control. The State also used or uses the term "mental illness" as
encompassing "mental disease", "mental disorder", "lunacy", "unsoundness of mind", and
31. This case will clearly demonstrate that it was the Plaintiffs known history of
“mental illness”, which the State of North Carolina purposely permitted some of the Defendants
to exploit and not solely harm the Plaintiff under the color of state law. But victimized the
Plaintiffs 311 victims which were harmed by the Plaintiffs wrong doings in 2002 which this
Court sentenced the Plaintiff to 120 months of imprisonment.
32. The Plaintiffs victims had a right to know of all matters pertaining to the Plaintiff s
business dealings, the others who were involved who should have been held accountable including
the Plaintiffs former personal and business attorney William E. Loose, as the proof will
demonstrate. All laws of this nation should be applied equally regardless of stature, disability or
controversy and accountable should be equally applied.

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.