YAN 3 ooyy ww NORTH CAROLINA E]L py INTHE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE PILED SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION GUILFORD COUNTY 16 CVS 7708 MN us 12 p 352 PREMIER JUDICIAL CONSULTANTS, LLC, ANORTH CAROLINA LIMITED: LIABILITY COMPANY; AND CANNON SURETY, LLC, ANORTH CAROLINA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs, vs. CLYDE ROBERT BRAWLEY, JR., Defendant. THIS CAUSE COMING ON TO BE HEARD before the undersigned Superior Court, Judge, upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction; and the Court having considered the Plaintiffs’ complaint and attached exhibits, the arguments of counsel, the Court now makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant in this matter. 2. Plaintiffs, Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits ofits claims against the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley. 3. It appears that the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley, has engaged in a course of conduct that would deprive Plaintiffs, Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC of its property rights outside the permissible bounds of the Constitution of the State of North Carolina, and the North Carolina General Statutes. 4, Absent the interim, preliminary relief set forth herein, Plaintiff, Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC, will be harmed in an imeparable manner as to its property rights. voce Paches OVA NF —5. Entry of this Order is appropriate under the unique facts and circumstances of this, case, 6. Any injury to the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley, caused by entry of this Order is, substantially and convincingly outweighed by the harm which Plaintiff, Cannon Surety, would suffer if the relicf requested were denied. 7. It is in the public interest for this Court to take swift, appropriate, and carefully tailored action to protect the citizens of the State of North Carolina from the apparent unfair and very secretive treatment of businesses in the state of North Carolina, Entry of this Order is in the public interest. 8. ‘The relief granted in this Order is reasonably tailored and narrowly proscribed to provide appropriate interim relief. 9. The relief requested is reasonable and appropriate and authorized under Section 39- 23.7 (a) (3) of the North Carolina General Statutes. 10. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Entry of Default on October 4,2016 and was granted ‘a Default by the Clerk of Court in this county, which makes a likelihood of suecess on the merits fairly certain, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW a ‘That the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant in this matter. 2. Plaintiffs, Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its claims against the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley. 3. It appears that the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley, has engaged in a course of conduct that would deprive Plaintiffs, Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC, of its property rights outside the permissible bounds of the Constitution of the State of North Carolina, and the North Carolina General Statutes, 4. Absent the interim, preliminary relief set forth herein, Plaintiffs, Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC will be harmed in an irreparable manner as to its property rights. 5. Entry of this Order is appropriate under the unique facts and circumstances of this case, 6. Any injury to the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley, caused by entry of this Order is substantially and convincingly outweighed by the harm which Plaintifis, Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC would suffer if the relief requested were denied, 27. It is in the public interest for this Court to take swift, appropriate, and carefully tailored action to protect the businesses in the State of North Carolina from the apparent unfair and very secretive treatment of citizens of the state of North Carolina. Entry of this Order is in the public interest, 8. The relief granted in this Order is reasonably tailored and narrowly proscribed to provide appropriate interim relief. 9. The relief requested is reasonable and appropriate and authorized under Section 39- 23.7 (a) (3) of the North Carolina General Statutes. 10. _ The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Entry of Default on October 4, 2016 and was granted a Default by the Clerk of Court in this county, which was set aside in a separate Order by this Court, THEREFORE, based upon the Foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Plaintiffs’ complaint, the record in this case and for other good cause shown, the Court hereby ORDERS that: 1. __ Pending further Orders of this Court, and subject to the other terms of this Order, the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley, is hereby prohibited from having any legal authority to act on behalf of Plaintifis, Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC in any manner whatsoever, Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley, is hereby probibited from doing or engaging in any of the following: (1) Legally binding Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC to any contract, agreement or thing of value whatsoever; (2) Write, sign or deposit checks on behalf of Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC; (3) Real estate transactions on behalf of Premicr Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC; (4) Personal property transactions of Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC; (5) Stock, bond, share and commodity transactions on behalf of Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC; (6) Banking transactions on behalf of Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC; (7) Safe deposits on behalf of Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC; (8) Business operating transactions on behalf of Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC; and (9) Insurance transactions on behalf of Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC; Nothing in this Order shall be construed as to prohibit the Defendant from receiving financial benefits as a result of his Twenty-Five Percent (25%) ownership share in Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC. Pending further Orders of this Court, the Defendant shall retain his Twenty-Five Percent (25%) economic interest in Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC. 2. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, pending further Orders of this Court that; (1) Funds shall only be expended by the President, members and other officers and/or employees of Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC to pay 3ordinary and bona fide business expenses of Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC; and (2) The President and other officers and/or employees of Premict Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC are hereby Ordered not to borrow any additional funds on behalf of Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC, purchase or encumber any real or personal property on behalf of Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC, open or close any bank accounts on behalf of Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC, take any actions that would dissolve Premier Judicial Consultants, L.C and Cannon Surety, LLC, pending a full hearing on a Preliminary Injunction. . _ ITIS ALSO HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, pending further Orders of this Court that: (1) All members of Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC, including the Defendant, are allowed to be paid their normal financial distributions as allowed by any prior company Agreements; and (2) The President, members and other officers and/or employees of Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC, are authorized to make and carry out legal and financial decisions to promote the corporate welfare of Premicr Judicial Consultants, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC, in their sole determination. This $500.00 posted in this matter with the Clerk of Court of Wilson County shall be transferred to the Clerk of Court of Guilford County and shall remain in full force and effect until the final judgment in this matter. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Plaintiff shall provide to the Defendant a profit and loss statement, at least on a quarterly basis, if not more often if it is able to do so, which shall contain the income and expenditures of Cannon Surety, LLC. It shall not be necessary for the Plaintiff to provide said profit and loss statement to the Defendant ina format prepared by an accountant or similar method. Rather a basic, simple format of whatever the Plaintiff is able to print off from its office computerized system shall suffice, . IP IS FURTHER ORDERED, that said profit and loss statements provided to the Defendant by the Plaintiff, shall not be provided or disclosed, discussed with, or disseminated to any third parties in any manner whatsoever, except by written Order of this Court, Notwithstanding the foregoing, it shall only be discussed with an officer or member of the Plaintiff, Cannon Surety, LLC. I IS FURTHER ORDERED, that any violations of the provisions of this Order, shall subject the violating party to the civil and criminal contempt powers of this Court upon the filing and noticing of a Motion to Show Cause.8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that nothing in this Order shall be construed as to prohibit contact and discussions between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant in their roles as business partners, SO ORDERED this the , day of January, 2017, nunc pro tune for November 10, 2016. TheFonos ble Stanley L. Allen Superior Court Judge Presiding~ NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE FILE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION GUILFORD COUNTY ED 16 CVS 7708 PREMIER JUDICIAL lb DEC 30 P wu 43 CONSULTANTS, LLC, ) A NORTH CAROLINA LIMIGHE FORD 00, C.8.¢, LIABILITY COMPANY; Al §) : CANNON SURETY, LLC, _ 6K) | A.NORTH CAROLINA LIMITE! LIABILITY COMPANY * NOTICE OF APPEAL Plaintiffs, vs. CLYDE ROBERT BRAWLEY, JR, Defendant. ‘NOW COMES the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action and pursuant to Rule 3(¢)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate procedure, and hereby gives Notice of Appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals from an Order Setting Aside Entry of Default entered in this matter on December 1 2016 by Superior Court Judge Stanley L. Allen and filed on December 9, 2016 in the Superior Court of Guilford County, This the “$0 day of December, 2016. BIBBS LAW GRQUP » MM, Mark L. Bibbs Attorney for Plaintiff 410 N. Boylan Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Telephone: (919) 256-3775 bibbslawgroup@gmail.com AN 0 4 eu D)CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC The undersigned hereby certifies that the following person was served a copy of the foregoing document, Notice of Appeal, via United States tail, delivery to the following address, postage pre-paid: Mr. Frederick K. Sharpless Sharpless & Stavola, P.A. Post Office Box 22106 Greensboro, North Carolina 27420 Mr. Steven A. McCloskey 240 Natalie Drive Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27104 Mr. Donald R. Vaughan Mr. Richard W. Forrester 612 W. Friendly Avenue Greensboro, North Carolina 27401 This the v0 day of December 2016. BIBBS LAW GROUP - JA TS Mark L. Bibbs: Attorney for Plaintifis 410 N. Boylan Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Telephone: (919) 256-375ote Me ay { NORTH CAROLINA. IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE fan SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION GUILFORD COUNTY neo 16 CVS 7708 yh age 22 PREMIER JUDICIAL — CONSULTANTS, LLC, ANORTH CAROLINA LIM LIABILITY COMPANY; AND: CANNON SURETY, LLC, ANORTH CAROLINA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiffs, VS. CLYDE ROBERT BRAWLEY, JR, Defendant. NOW COMES the undersigned counsel for the Plaintifi’s and moves the Court foran Order to Show Cause against the North Carolina Department of Insurance (“DOI”), and its legal counsel, ‘Mr. Robert D. Croom and Mr. David Boone, as to why they should all not be held in Contempt for violating the Order of this Court entered on November 17, 2016, Compelling the Production of Documents in the exclusive possession of DOI pursuant to a valid subpoena issued by the undersigned and shows unto the Court as follows: 1, That on November 17, 2016 counsel for DOL, Mr. Robert Croom with his co-counsel, Mr. David Boone, in open court, provided the counsel for the Plaintiffs with copies of 3 or 4 emails from DOI to the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley; 2. That on November 18, 2016 counsel for DOI, Mr, Robert Croom with his co-counsel, Mr. David Boone, hand delivered to the law office of the counsel for the Plaintifits with copies of 3 or 4 emails from the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley to DOI and a copy of the Plaintiff's Operating Agreement executed in November of 2014; 3. That DO! represented to counsel for the Plaintiffs that these few emails sent and received in May of 2016 were all of the emails and correspondence that they have in their9. possession that are subject to this Court’s Order Compelling Production; ‘That upon information and belief, DOT is in possession of hundreds of emails, documents and correspondence from the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley to DOI, and from DOI to the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley; That upon information and belief, the DOI knows that the hundreds of emails, documents and correspondence from the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley to DOI, and from DOI to the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley are subject to the Order entered in this case Compelling Production of Documents pursuant to a valid subpoena issued by the undersigned; ‘That upon information and belief, DOI has fought, stonewalled, behaved in a surreptitious manner, and conspired with employces within the DOI and the Department of Justice (“DOJ") to keep any and all of these hundreds of emails, documents and correspondence from the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley to DOI, and from DOI to the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley fiom the Plaintiffs and from this Court, that ate relevant and vital to this case and are necessary for the Plaintiff’ to prove some of the major allegations contained in their complaint against the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley; ‘That upon information and belief, no justifiable reason exists for DOI not to comply with the Court’s Order Compelling Production entered on November 17,2016, except to willfully keep those hundreds of emails, documents and correspondence from the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley to DOI, and from DOI to the Defendant, Clyde Robest Brawley, in direct violation of the Court’s Order Compelling Production of Documents entered on November 17, 2016; ‘That upon information and belief, the DOI has purposefully, willfully and flagrantly violated both the letter and the spirit of the Court's Order Compelling Production of Documents entered on November 17, 2016; That because of these purposeful, willful and flagrant actions by the DOI, all of which ate in direct violation of the Court’s Order Compelling Production of Documents entered on November 17, 2016, the DOI, and both of their counsel of record in thismatter should be held in direct contempt of the Court’s Order Compelling Production of Documents entered on November 17, 2016; 10. That because of these purposeful, willful and flagrant actions by the DOI, all of which are in direct violation of the Court’s Order Compelling Production of Documents entered on November 17, 2016, the DOI, and both of their counsel of record in this matter should Ordered to reimburse the Plaintiffs for their attorney fees in connection with the subpoena and defending the DOT's Motion to Quash the Plaintiffs subpoenas; 11, That the Plaintiffs request that this Court review all of the hundreds of emails, documents and correspondence from the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley to DOI, and from DOI to the Defendant, Clyde Robert Brawley, in camera, and then determine which documents should be produced and which documents should not be produced pursuant to this Court’s Order Compelling Production of Documents entered on November 17, 2016; and 12. That the Plaintiff prays for any other relief deemed necessary by the Court in connection with this matter. This the ny of November, 2016. BIBBS LAW GROUP. we LOE Mark 1, Bibbs N.C. State Bar No. 22680 410 North Boylan Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Telephone: (919) 256-3775 bibbslawsroup@amail.comCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ‘The undersigned hereby certifies that the following persons were served a copy of the foregoing document via email delivery and/United States mail delivery to the following address, postage pre-paid: Mr. Robert D. Croom, Esq. Mr. David Boone, Esq. North Carolina Department of Justice Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 This te 22 day of November, 2016, BIBBS LAW GROW) Mark L. Bibbs 410N. Boylan Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Telephone: (919) 256-3775ea Me ce NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE : 40 SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION GUILFORD COUNTY pe 16 CVS 7708 PREMIER JUDICIAL CONSULTANTS, LLC, £ H ANORTH CAROLINA LIMITED ,. LIABILITY COMPANY; AND CANNON SURETY, LLC, ANORTH CAROLINA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, VERIFIED MOTION FOR Plaintiffs, ATTORNEY FEES vs. CLYDE ROBERT BRAWLEY, JR, Defendant. NOW COMES the undersigned counsel and moves the Court for an Order for Attomey Fees against a third party, the North Carolina Department of Insurance, who was Court Ordered through its legal counsel, the North Carolina Department of Justice, to produce documents Pursuant to a validly issued subpoena by the undersigned. In support of this Verified Motion for Attorney Fees, the movant asks that this Verified Motion be treated as an Affidavit, and shows unto the Court as follows: 1, That Lam the Counsel of record for Plaintiffs in the above-entitled action; 2. That Lam over the age of eighteen years old (18) and [am competent to give verified statements; that I am not incompetent; nor do I suffer from any mental or physical disability; 3. That counsel for the North Carolina Department of Insurance (“DOI”) filed a Motion to Quash the subpocna issued on 4 separate occasions to produce on, September 8, 2016; October 6, 2016; November 10, 2016; and November 17, 2016, in the above referenced case; 4. That counsel for DOI filed a Notice of Hearing in the above referenced case on its Motion to Quash the Plaintiffs” subpoena for documents;5. That DOT’s Motion to Quash was heard on Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 2:00 pam. by the Honorable Stanley L. Allen., Superior Court Judge presiding, in Guilford County Superior Court; 6. That the Court considered the evidence offered by the parties, the arguments of counsel and the entire record in this ease and it, (1) Granted DOI’s Motion to Quash ONLY as to documents sought that would be subject to N.C.G.S, 58-10-430; and (2) Denied DOI’s Motion to Quash as to documents sought that would be subject (o N.C.G.S, 58-10-345 (1). The Court then issued an Order Compelling the Production of the documents subpoenaed that are subject to N.C.GS. 58-10-345 (f) and that those documents would be subject to a Protective Order issued by ‘the Court on the same day and at the same time as the Order Compelling Production; 7. ‘That I spent time personally preparing the subpoenas on 3 separate occasions, September 6, 2016; October 3, 2016; and November 11, 2016; 8. That I spent time personally serving DOI on each of those 3 dates mentioned; 9. That I did defend successfully DOT's Motion to Quash on November 17, 2016 in Guilford County Superior Court, 10. That I spent time traveling from my law office in Raleigh, North Carolina to Wilson, North Carolina and back, for court to defend DOP’s Motion to Quash on September 8, 2016; 11, That I spent time traveling from my law office in Raleigh, North Carolina, Greensboro, North Carolina and back, for court to defend DOI’s Motion to Quash on October 6, 2016; 12, That I spent time traveling from my law office in Raleigh, North Carolina to Greensboro, North Carolina and back, for court to defend DOI’s Motion to Quash on November 10, 2016; 13, ‘That 1 spent time traveling from my law office in Raleigh, North Carolina to Greensboro, North Carolina and back, for court to defend DOT's Motion to Quash on November 17, 2016; 14. Thatalthough Lam the counsel of record for Plaintiff's in this action, Iam not servingas pro bono counsel, and have been keeping an accurate record of my billable hourly time on this ‘Motion to Quash, that has taken my time away from other client matters; 15. ‘That I have been licensed to practice law in the State of North Carolina since March 23, 1996 and my billable hourly rate is $400.00 per hour for my legal services; 16, That I have spent in excess of ten (10) billable hours of my time on defending the DOI’s Motion to Quash, for which my clients should be reimbursed for the costs of my legal representation in regards to the subpoena for the production of documents as I was successful in defending DOT's Motion to Quash; 17. Thatat the appropriate time and at the Court’s instruction, I will prepare and file and affidavit of my time spent on this matter along with the total amount of attomey fees owed to my client by DOL 18. That N.C.G.S. 6-20 states in relevant pact: “§ 6-20. Costs allowed or not, in discretion of court. In actions where allowance of costs is not otherwise provided by the General Statutes, costs may be allowed in the discretion of the court. Costs awarded by the court are subject to the limitations on assessable or recoverable costs set forth in G.S. 7A-305(d), unless specifically provided for otherwise in the General Statutes. (Code, s. 527; Rev., s. 1267; C.S., s, 1243; 2007-212, s. 2.)” 19. That N.C.G.S, 7A-305(D) states in relevant part: “§ 74-305. Costs in civil actions, (a) __Inevery civil action in the superior or district court, except for actions brought under Chapter SOB of the General Statutes, shall be assessed: (@) The following expenses, when incurred, are assessable or recoverable, as the case may bbe, The expenses set forth in this subsection are complete and exclusive and constitute a limit on the trial court's discretion to tax costs pursuant to G.S. 6-20: (1) Witness fees, as provided by law. @) Jail fees, as provided by law. 3) Counsel fees, as provided by law. (4) Expense of service of process by certified mail and by publication. (5) Costs on appeal to the superior court, orto the appellate division, as the case may be, of the original transcript of testimony, if any, insofar as essential to the appeal (6) Fees for personal service and civil process and other sheriffs fees, as provided by law. Fees for personal service by a private process server may be recoverable in an amount equal to the actual cost of such service or fifty dollars ($50.00), whichever is less, unless the court finds that due to difficulty of service a greater amount is appropriate.(7) Fees of mediators appointed by the court, mediators agreed upon by the parties, guardians ad litem, referees, receivers, commissioners, surveyors, arbitrators, appraisers, and other similar court appointees, as provided by law. The fee of such appointees shall include reasonable reimbursement for stenographic assistance, when necessary. (8) Fees of interpreters, when authorized and approved by the court, (9) Premiums for surety bonds for prosecution, as authorized by G.S. 1-109. (10) Reasonable and necessary expenses for stenographic and videographic assistance directly related to the taking of depositions and for the cost of deposition transcripts. (11) _ Reasonable and necessary fees of expert witnesses solely for actual time spent providing testimony at trial, deposition, or other proceedings. (12) The fee assessed pursuant to subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section upon assignment of acase to a special superior court judge as a complex business case. Nothing in this subsection or in G.S. 6-20 shall be construed to limit the tial court's authority to award fees and expenses in connection with pretrial discovery matters as provided in Rule 26(b) or Rule 37 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and no award of costs made pursuant to this section or pursuant to G.S. 6-20 shall reverse or modify any such orders entered in connection with pretrial discovery. ©) ___ Nothing in this section shall affect the liability of the respective parties for costs as provided by law. (Q) _ Forthe support of the General Court of Justice, the sum of twenty dollars ($20.00) shall accompany any filing of a notice of hearing on a motion not listed in G.S. 7A-308 that is filed with the clerk. No costs shall be assessed to a notice of hearing on a motion containing as a sole claim for tclief the taxing of costs, including attorneys’ fees, to a motion filed pursuant to G.S. 10-1602 ot G.S. 1C-1603, or to a motion filed by a child support enforcement agency established pursuant to Part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act. No more than one fee shall be assessed for any motion for which a notice of hearing is filed, regardless of whether the hearing is continued, rescheduled, or otherwise delayed. (1965, c. 310, s. 1; 1967, c. 108, s. 10; . 691, s. 30; 1971, ¢. 377, ss. 23, 2 1181, s. 1; 1973, c, 503, ss. 12-14; ¢. 1267, s. 3; 1975, c. 558, s. 3; 1975, 2nd Sess., c. 980, ss. 2. 3: 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1234, s. 1; 1981, c. 555, s. 6; . 691, s. 2; 1983, ¢. 713, ss. 4-6; 1989, c, 786, s. 1991, c. 742, s. 15(b); 1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 811, s. 2; 1993, c. 435, s. 6; 1995, c. 275, s. 25 1998-212, s. 29A.12(b); 1998-219, ss. 2, 3; 2000-109, s. 4(b); 2001-424, s, 22.14(b); 2002-126, ss. 294.4), 29.6(¢); 2004-186, s. 4.3; 2005-276, s, 43.1(b); 2005-405, s. 5; 2005-425, s. 1.2; 2007- 212, s. 3; 2007-293, s. 2; 2007-323, ss. 30.8(b), 30.10(2), 30.11(@), (€); 2007-345, ss. 9.1(@), (6)s 2008-107, ss. 29.1(a),29.8(b); 2008-118, s. 2.9(c); 2008-193, s. 2; 2009-451, s. 15,20(d), (c);2010- 31, 8. 15.5(b), 15.8(a); 2010-123, s. 6.1; 2011-145, s. 31.23(b); 2012-142, s. 16.5(c); 2013-225, ss, 2, 3, 4(a); 2013-360, ss. 18B.17(a), 30.2(a), 30.2(al); 2013-363, s, 7.1; 2014-102, 4; 2015-241, s, 18A.23(¢),)”20. That the statutory authority exists as referenced above for the Court, in its discretion, to grant this motion. This tre2 Lay of November, 2016, BIBBS LAW GROUP » Whi, Mark L. Bibbs N.C. State Bar No. 22680 410 North Boylan Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 ‘Telephone: (919) 256-3775 bibbstawgroup@gmai IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 02! day of NOVEMBER, 2016. tA VY ‘ MARK L. BIBBS (SEAL) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WAKE COUNTY On this _2/ day of NOVEMBER, 2016, personally appeared before me, the said named MARK L. BIBBS, to me known and known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and he acknowledged that he executed the same and being duly sworn by ‘me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing instrument are true. My commission expires: /4- /6- 20,20 Notary Ryblic Ws70¢ ss STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, NOY 4 7 QEW}THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE j | GUILFORD COUNTY 10% SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 3 i 8} 16 CVS 007708 PREMIER JUDICIAL CONSULTAt ANORTH CAROLINA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, and CANNON SURETY, LLC, ANORTH CAROLINA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT. Plaintiffs C, ROBERT BRAWLEY re ‘TROANJUNCTION HEARING vs. CLYDE ROBERT BRAWLEY, JR, Defendant AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT CLYDE ROBERT BRAWLEY, JR. re ‘TRO / INJUNCTION HEARING I, Clyde Robert Brawley, Jr., am a competent adult and say the following of my own personal knowledge. I have read and reviewed the attached exhibits, and certify that they are true copies of documents sent, received or reviewéd by me. Background 1. In 2014, I was recruited and induced by Dallas McClain, Carl Valentine, and Lynette ‘Thompson, to be a Member of (plaintiff) Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC (“PIC”), which in turn was the sole owner of (plaintiff) Cannon Surety, LLC (“Cannon”). Cannon Surety is a captive insurance company engaged in the bail bonding business; PIC is Cannon's “parent” company/owner. Originally, the three persons named above and myself owned 25% of PIC. (Exhibit A)2, My contribution to PIC was financial, that is, a Letter of Credit (LoC) in the amount of approximately $700,000; as security for the LoC, my wife and I refinanced real property we had invested in for our retirement. 1 also contributed $100,000 to Cannon’s operating account, as required by DOI, and another $50,000 for legal and start-up expenses, that is, a total of approximately $850,000. The contributions of the three other members — Messrs. McClain and Valentine, and Ms. Thompson - consisted primarily of their “sweat equity” and purported knowledge and expertise in the bail bonding business. Mr. McClain was appointed President of PIC, and managed the daily operations of PJC and Cannon; I was named PJC’s Secretary. Gross Mismanagement of PJC, and Especially Cannon Surety, by Dallas McClain 3. I found out much later, in June of 2016, that after PJC was approved as a limited liability company by the Sccretary of State in November of 2014, two of the original Members of PIC, Lynette Thompson and Carl Valentine, immediately transferred their 25% interests on or about November 24, 2014 to Member Dallas McClain; these transfers were conceeled from me, occurred without my knowledge, and without my authorization as a Member of PJC. In my email of Wednesday, June 10, 2015 (Exhibit B), captioned “June 4" Meeting Notes,” I wrote (emphasis added): “Thank {sic] for attending Dallas McClain, Lynn Thompson, Carl Valentine, Robert Brawley. This will serve as notes and history of our meeting so please any changes that are needed Jet me know. . , . 4) Robert and Carl [Valentine] agreed Cannon needs its own staff and Dallas needs help if [Canjnon is to meet its full potential. Robert Brawley offered to help with the office organization ...” 4, On Monday, July 6, 2015, I wrote an email to Dallas McClain, Lyne Thompson and Carl Valentine - who had surreptitiously transferred their Member interests to McClain - that‘was captioned “Subject: Meeting June 1, 2015 Minutes, for Your Approval,” (Exhibit C) and which read in relevant part (emphasis added): Members of Primer [sic] Judicial met July 1, 2015 at 2303 Meadowview Dr., Greensboro at 9:00 AM. There were no financial reports and the first quarter report has not been completed [as of July 6, 2015}. Dallas stated that the second quarter report would be ready much sooner because all the financial information is being recorded in Quick Books.” 5. The point is that Carl Valentine and Ms. Thompson were participating in meetings as Members, while unbeknownst to me, they had transferred their 25% interests in PIC to Mr. McClain in November of 2014. It was only in June of 2016 that I began to hear rumors about the transfers by Valentine and Thompson of their 25% interests in PIC, and on June 27, 2016 — one year and 6 months after PIC was formed ~ Mr. McClain finally gave me copies of the alleged transfer documents. (Exhibit D) 6. As I will demonstrate with this Affidavit and Exhibits, for the last 18 — 22 months I have had growing and scrious financial and legal concems about how PIC and especially Cannon ‘Surety were being operated and managed by Mr. McClain. 7. Captive insurance company such as Cannon Surety, LLC are required by the Department of Insurance to have a “captive manager” to oversee the captive’s operations. The document that perhaps gave me the greatest concern was an email dated December 14, 2015 to Dallas McClain, that included an attached letter dated December 10, 2015; both (Exhibit B) were from Atlas Insurance Management, the captive manager for Cannon Surety, LLC. The letter is captioned: “Re: Termination of insurance management services,” and reads in relevant part (emphasis added): “Our records indicate that you have consistently failed to provide us with financial records and other supporting documents relating to the business of the ‘Company [Cannon Surety]. The Company is, therefore, in breach of Sections 4.1, 342, 44, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 of the [Management] Agreement. You are hereby notified that we are terminating our services under the Insurance Management Agreement, for cause, effective immediately. . ..A eopy of this letter has been delivered to the Department of Insurance of the State of North Carolina.” 8. On Monday, December 21, 2015, I sent an email to Dallas MeClain, Carl Valentine, and Lyne Thompson, captioned "Subject: Books and Secriary (sic]" (Exhibit F). In that email, 1 wrote (emphasis added): “Dallas, It is with regret that I write this letter, but Canon books are a mess and there does not seem to be any effort to correct the problem, The problem is tracking cash flow, if audited an honest CPA will declare, just as Atlas that there is not enough information to see who paid, when it was paid, when deposited, generally no trail on the finances of Cannon." 9. Mr. McClain responded to my email above, on December 22, 2015 and it is highly significant that he copied his reply to Carl Valentine (and Lyne Thompson). The reason is that on February 3, 2016 - 43 days after McClain replied to my December 21, 2015 email and copied Mr. Valentine, McClain answered questions posed by Ms. Angela Hatchell of the Agent Services Division of the Department of Insurance; in that email to Ms. Hatchell (Exhibit G), Mr. McClain denied that he had any business relationship with Carl Valentine involving the bail bonding business. 4 As can be seen from the numerous email exhibits attached to this Affidavit, Carl Valentine was the sender, recipient, or copied on, several of those emails, proving beyond a doubt, despite McClain’s denials to DOT and Ms. Hatchell, Valentine’s extensive involvement with McClain and plaintiff-LLCs in their bail bonding acti ties. Also, it is most curious why Mr. In the Spring of 2016, I received Mr. McClain’s February 3, 2016 email reply to Ms, Hatchell regarding any relationship that he might have with Carl Valentine. I received a copy of that email from Mr. Mark Cartret, who informed me that he had obtained it, along with several other documents, from the Department of Insurance pursuant to a Public Records Request that he had made to DOI. (See Cartret Affidavit, attached as Exhibit O, and his Exhibit I, the February 3 email)McClain would have sent such an important, Cannon-relaied document to several DOI personnel, yet did not copy me on his emailed response; perhaps because he knew I would not tolerate his deception, and would immediately notify DOL about it, 10, When I received a copy of Mr. McCiain’s February 3, 2016 email reply to Ms. Hatehell (from Mark Carteret’s Public Records request), I was stunmed by Mr. McClain’s intentionally deceiving the Department of Insurance regarding Valentine’s involvement with PJC and Cannon. Af this point, please let me remind the Court that Mr. MeClain is the person who signed i) the Verification of the plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint, and ii) the Affidavit by which the plaintiffs obtained the Temporary Restraining Order against me in Wilson County, As president and Member-Manager of PIC, and as Manager of Cannon, Mr. McClain is an agent of and for the plaintiffs, and his Verification and Affidavit were made within the scope of his agency, 11. See also Exhibit H, which is an email written by me on September 7, 2015, and which reads in part (emphasis added): “Dallas, before the end of this week, I want a complete, honest accounting of monies owed to and/or by Cannon Surety. This would include Carl [Valentine], how much he has been paid and owes... There are so many deceptive activities and questionable issues, | am questioning my own staying power. . .. Anything less than complete disclosure by all parties is not acceptable. By now I hope you know, while I trust everyone, I consider less than full disclosure to be a lie, and J feel lied to and deceived, Robert Brawley” 12. In 2015, Cannon wrote approximately $40 million in bonds. Yet the Schedule K-1 Partnership form that I was issued by PIC states that there was “No Activity” for tax year 2015. (Exhibit 1) Further, to this time, I have not received or seen the Premium Tax Return and Tax Payment that was due on or before March 15, 2016. Finally, to this time, I have not received or seen the Annual Audit Report for 2015, which was due on March 15, 2016 (see email at Exhibit1-2 from Jonathan Stark, copied to Debbie Walker, both employees of DOI); nor have I received ‘or scen the Statement of Actuarial Opinion required by DOI that was due on June 30, 2016 (due dates for each at Exhibit 1-3); these reports should have been filed by Manager Mr. McClain for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ Claim of Forgery by Defendant Robert Brawley 13. In their Complaint, and Amended Complaint, plaintiffs accused me of “forging” the signature of Dallas McClain on bank documents. ‘These documents were overwhelmingly for the purpose of setting up what is known in the bail bonding business as a BUF account, which is an escrow account in the name of each bail bond agent that protects the surety - Cannon, in this case ~ in the event that a defendant for whom the bail agent has posted bond were to ‘jump bail,” in which case, by law, the surety - and not the bondsman - becomes liable for payment of the bond. In other words, agents pay a percentage of each bond premium into their individual BUF escrow accounts to indemnify the surety if a defendant absconds. The BUF accounts actually belong to the agents, but are controlled and set up for the protection of plaintiffs Cannon and Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC, including Mr. McClain as a Member and President of the latter, 14, The plaintiffs allege forgery of MoClain signatures by me; although plaintiffs have not identified the specific documents that were allegedly forged, I believe they would most likely are referring to bank forms used to set up agents’ BUF accounts. In the early months of 2015, I ‘was picking up the BUF/escrow forms at Capital Bank in Mooresville, and sending or taking the bank form(s) to McClain in Greensboro for his signature (about a 3-hour round trip). On one ‘occasion, Mr. McClain came by the bank in Mooresville to sign a form to setup an agent'sBUFleserow account, After Mr. MeClain signed the form, he returned it to me, and I then signed it and took it to Capital Bank. 15, Under this system, it usually took about two weeks after I received the paperwork to get MeClain’s signature and then take the form to the bank to set up the BUF account. When Mr. McClain stopped in Mooresville to sign as described above, he said the process was taking too Jong, and then told me to sign his name to any forms required by the bank, At first I objected but after again going through the process, I asked Dallas for assurance that he was authorizing me — ‘as Secretary of PIC - to sign his name. Not only did Mr. McClain authorize me to sign his name ‘on bank forms, he ratified that practice, that is, he was well aware of the process for opening the accounts, and as more agents came on board, more BUF/escrow accounts had to be opened. 16. The prompt opening of agents’ BUF/escrow accounts was for the benefit of the agents, but also for the benefit of Cannon Surety, and PIC, in which Mr, McClain owns a 75% interest. That is why Mr. McClain never objected to my signing his signature, until this lawsvit by the plaintiffs, when they needed false claims to smear me and try to damage my reputation in the eyes of the Department of Insurance, to whom I had reported plaintiffs’ imegular accounting, and operational practices, and from whom J requested an audit of Cannon, something requested by an honest person when there is mismanagement. (At the foreshortened hearing on the TRO in Greensboro on October 6 before Judge Allen, defendants requested that DOI release the audit, which DO! claimed was confidential. I wholeheartedly join plaintiff’ in that request for the audit, as it will support my claims of gross mismanagement of Cannon.) 17. The following exhibits demonstrate that the BUF accounts were discussed often, and that Mr. McClain was well aware of what was required to set up BUF/escrow accounts, and that.such accounts were being set up by me, as Secretary of Cannon, with his knowledge, approval and ratification, (Exhibits K, L, M, N). TROMnjunction: irreparable Harm Being Done to Defendant Brawley, Nof Plaintiffs 18, The Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) obtained by plaintiff Cannon Surety, LLC on August 30, 2016, which was signed by the Hon. Milton F. Fitch, Jr., was obtained under false pretenses by way of the fabricated Affidavit of Dallas McClain, Further, in 19 of the Findings of Fact, and 4] 9 of the Conclusions of Law in the TRO, plaintiff Cannon alleged: “9. The relief requested is reasonable and appropriate and authorized under Section 39- 23.1(@)3) of the North Carolina Gen. Statutes.” That statute and section allows creditors to obtain injunctive relief in certain situations; plaintiff Cannon Surety was not a creditor of defendant Mr. Brawley. On the contrary, Mr. Brawley had provided a Letter of Credit, operating account funding of $100,000 and $50,000 for legal and start-up expenses (about $850,000) to Cannon and PIC. Further, § 3 on page 16 of plaintiff Cannon Surety’s Verified Complaint states: “That the undersigned [plaintiff's attorney Mark Bibbs] has sought to determine whether Defendant Brawley is represented by legal counsel prior to seeking an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order, and through his due diligence, has learned that Defendant Brawlcy’s counsel, John Mansfield, has ended bis representation of the Defendant Brawley. Attached to this Verified Complaint, Motion for an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is a statement from John Mansfield, Attorney at law, that be no longer represents the Defendant Brawley at this time.” ‘The question then becomes why attomey Bibbs, in the exercise of his “due diligence,” did not contact me directly regarding the Fx Parte TRO. 19. As previously noted above, it was I who had, by far, the most to lose financially from the misfeasance and malfeasance in the operation and management of Cannon and PIC by Dallas 8‘McClain. And as has been demonstrated with the email exhibits attached to this Affidavit, it was I who repeatedly demanded accurate and truthful accounting practices and compliance with statutes and regulations relevant to insurance companies, particularly, captive insurance companies. The plaintiffs have not been irreparably harmed by my actions, nor has the “public interest,” as stated in 7 of the TRO. On the contrary, my actions were an attempt to keep the plaintiffs themselves, my investment in the LLCs, and the “public interest” from being, harmed by Mr. MeClain’s misfeasance and malfeasance as manager of the plaintiffs, 20. The TRO stated that I “shall not come on or about the premises of any Cannon Surety, LLC office or location; shall not have any contact with any Cannon Surety, LLC bail agents,” and has thereby violated my due process and First Amendment rights, and prevented me and my attorney from obtaining information from the plaintiffs’ (of which I am an owner) office, which hindered us in preparing our Answer and Counterclaims against plaintiffs. I am most. concerned about how Mr. McClain has spent the plaintifis’ cash flow and reserves, including my ‘own investment funds, for inappropriate purposes, such as the filing of this frivolous and unfounded lawsuit against me; under the TRO, I cannot make inquiries to the banks holding plaintiffs’ accounts. 21. Finally, at (9) in | 1 on page 3 of the TRO, it states: “Nothing in this Order shall be construed as to prohibit the Defendant from receiving financial benefit is [sic] as a result of his ‘Twenty-Five Percent (25%) ownership share in Cannon Surety, LLC.” In 3 on page 4, the TRO states: “., . (1) All members and economic interest holders of Cannon Surety, LLC, Defendant, are allowed to be paid their normal financial distributions as allowed by any prior company Agreements; and...“22. I, Robert Brawley, have not received payments of $11,000 per month by either of the plaintiffs, which payments were due on September 15 and October 15 of 2016, according to a Joan agreement with plaintiff Cannon Surety, LLC. The plaintiff proposed an order following the parties? appearance regarding the TRO in Guilford County Superior Court on October 6, 2016, which included the following language: “7. That in addition to the original Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order’s terms and conditions, the parties named in the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint filed in this matter on August 31, 2016 are hereby incorporated in to all of the terms and conditions of the original Bx Parte Temporary Restraining Order, that the only party added and effected by this addition, is Plaintiff, Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC.” 23. Neither I nor my attorney has received a copy of the signed and entered order proposed by the plaimtifi’s. However, although the loan by the undersigned was made to Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC, PIC is delinquent in its payments for $11,000 per month for the month of September and October. But regardless of whether PIC is covered by the TRO, it is still contractually obligated to make monthly payments to me for providing the loan that backs the Letter of Credit. In January, 2016, I transferred $820,000 to US Bank, as requested by DOI, on which Cannon now eams interest, rather than paying a fee for the Letter of Credit. 24, Plaintiffs aver that 1 intended to “irreparably harm” them. That is difficult for them to square with the fact that J agreed to a reduction of the original monthly payment (10 pay down my loan for the Letter of Credit) of $25,000 (Exhibit N), down to $16,500, and reduced it again to the current $11,000, all in order to help the plaintiffs’ cash flow problems and build a quality business. 25. Paragraph 26 on page 4 of plaintifis’ Amended Complaint states: “26, That Defendant Brawley has provided Cannon documents to Pierce for inclusion on his website.” This 10is yet another falsehood in plaintiffs’ “Verified Complaint” (verified by Dallas McClain), as shown by the Affidavit of Mr. Ron Pierce. (Exhibit J) 26. The undersigned Affiant has shown that the plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint and the Affidavit supporting their TRO - both of which were sworn to by Mr. Dallas McClain - are filled with outrageous falsehoods and half-truths designed to deceive the Court. I did not defame the plaintiffs, but rather told the truth to the Department of Insurance and others, and the plaintiffs” attempt to silence such communications is a violation of my rights of free speech, freedom of association and the right to petition for a redress of grievances. Because the financial and operations information from Mr. McClain and Carl Valentine was, at best, wrong, misleading and incomplete, | had to ask questions of DOI and others to learn the truth. Further, Affiant sayeth not, (This space intentionally left blank. Affiant Brawley’ notarized signature is on the next page.) 11Affiant, C. Robert Brawley SWORN to and subscribed to before me His, < day of Noy 016. olny, soe 8 O8e¢y 3 NOTARY PUBLI & NOTARY My Commission Expi PUBLIC 98 Go Ae “Ubshs. coms “Manny —Drod.ng @. NCoa -—Forwarded Message--—- From: duhki E ei eee 9: . Garl Valentine , Lyne Thompson Subject: Re: Books and Seortary Hey Robert, | understand your need to protect yourself, especially inthe current political situation, And if you have questions, send them ‘or ask away. Here is what is going on. Bee tcc neloue int ‘of the check filed in vendor file. Every dollar coming into Cannon is supported by a detailed report and accompanying powers. ‘We have tried to cut down on cash, and are getting money orders if we do get cash. All money orders & checks are deposited (asually remotely) same day or nearly and have a complete accompanying deposit detail sheet attached tothe original. Those ae filed by date, and the deposit software can generate all sorts of reports about our deposits, although I haven't needed to do that yet. We started employee withholding, ete a few weeks ago, and Gudy requested to changeover Jan 1. So we are paying in now and forward, We will send 1099's as required. We have spread the word about the premium blank that needs to be filled in and agents are doing so. Those extra bits are going into our system. We are going back to day one and using best estimates as Ray Martinez asked. We are geting the ‘agent membership program underway simultancously. And we are in the progess of year end swap out of expiring powers and inventory audit. : lar out, dollar in, and at is am exploring alternate captive mers now. 1 ‘believe we benefit more from @ CPA type firm who can interface with us including payroll, rather than all the stuff that most Captive Mgrs tend to offer. Mainly because of our business. Ray had mentioned that perhaps we might find we may not need a Captive Mgr, but I think we need a firm who can deliver the format that DOL is used to seeing. The original firm that did our projections ete (not actuarial) is the same firm that Atlas uses and bills us for. I have a relationship with them and 1 ‘ean approach them, DOI knows their work well also. A discussion by us is inorder on this. Let me know of any questions or concems. “oda the 2nd marks Cannon's actually | year annlwstsary since approve 1 ‘hope you and your family have a nice holiday together. We will be here through most of Thursday. Dallas ps. you had asked about Kim's volume since Dan. We cant see 2 whole lot of difference, although in speaking with Dan by phone the other week, he says he is keeping busy and covered for them when they were out of town. 1 suspect the volume is steady, and they are letting Dan free them up some. | Erom: "crobertb@abis.net” “To: Dallas McClain , Carl Velentine ; Lyne Thompson Seer 7 Carl Valentine ‘pine Thompson -L ‘Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 11:40 AM ‘Subject: Books and Secrtary “ced mst page.is, It is with rec at | write this letter , but Cannon books. and there do effort to conrect 1 probl ing ca flow, if audited an honest CPA will farohip ij 1s that there is n hit i fed ‘on the finances of Cannon. As | check the statutes all director end corel the President and Secretary are aie for adequacy and accuracy of fi it is criminal not to have complete ds, Since | do and accuracy of Mompiete records, unless Ido se the records before Jan 1, 2015, | ill submit my resignation as secretary of Cannon Surety LLC to Cannon and to DOI to be effective immediately. We already have a pr |_being concemed about our ‘seoords, f you need a lists oT questions, can provide. Robert Brawiey “Together We Can" "Together We Can"AFFIDAVIT October 25, 2016 To Whom It May Concern: 1.) have been asked to provide an Affidavit for the sole purpose of getting information from Robert Brawley, on or for and about Cannon Surety and Premier Judicial. 2.) have NOT received documentation directly from Robert Brawley for and on my articles posted on NCADVOCATE.NET. 3.)All information about Cannon Surety and Premier Judicial was obtained thru and from outside sources other than Robert Brawley. 4.) | did inform Robert Brawley of my intention of making an offer for the purchase of Cannon Surety and Premier Judicial. But never got a concrete answer back from anyone. Other than a cease and desist letter from Dallas McClain, Carl Valentine and Mark Bibbs. (bbe Ronald L. Pierce Owner of NCADVOCATE.NET T Goknaalecds® this alhidosid was Syed I ny prestce on Cetdber 2,30 by Ronald L. Pierce. pO. Wate LAJOHNA WATKINS ‘My Commission Expires Jan. 8, 2017STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE GUILFORD COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 16 CVS 007708 PREMIER JUDICIAL CONSULTANTS, LLC, A NORTH CAROLINA LIMITED ) LIABILITY COMPANY, and ) CANNON SURETY, LLC, ) ANORTH CAROLINA LIMITED ) LIABILITY COMPANY, ) AFFIDAVIT OF ) MARK CARTRET Plaintifis ) re HEARING ON v. ) ‘TROANJUNCTION ) CLYDE ROBERT BRAWLEY, JR., ) ) » Defendant ) AFFIDAVIT OF MARK CARTRET for TRO/INJUNCTION HEARING J, Mark Cartret, am a competent adult, over age 21, and say the following of my own personal knowledge. I have read and reviewed the attached exhibit, and certify that it is a true copy of a document received by me from the Department of Insurance, as described below. 1. Lam the Chairman & CEO of Agent Associates Insurance, LLC (AAI), a duly registered North Carolina captive insurance company engaged in the business of providing judicial bail bonds. 2. Over the last 24 months, I have made numerous requests to the North Carolina Department of Insurance (hereafter “DOI”) pursuant to the North Carolina Public Records Act. One of those requests ‘was made on or about 4 February, 2016, for public records relating to Carl Valentine. 3. In response to my request wherein I was seeking information pertaining to an unlawful relationship, I received a copy of an email dated February 3, 2016, sent from an email address listed as “duhkingfish@yahoo.com” to Ms. Angela Hatchell, Mr. ‘Thomas West, and other DOI employees. (Exhibit 1) I have personal knowledge that the aforementioned email address is that of Mr. Dallas McClain; at the end of the email dated February 3, 2016, is the closing line: “Regards, Dallas MeClain”.C C 4, The email dated Fobruary 3, 2016 that I received pursuant to my Public Records request appears to contain Mr. McClain’s responses to questions by Ms. Hatchell of the DOI regarding Mr. MeClain’s relationship(s) to Carl Valentine. The second line of the email, which is apparently language from Ms. Hatchell’s original email to Mr. McClain states: “The Agent Services Di jon fof DOT] has received allegations that you {Dallas McClain] have a business association or agreement with a person [Carl Valentine] who has been disqualified under the bail bond laws of this State.” 5. At the bottom of the February 3, 2016 email is a question, apparently from Ms. Hatchell, which reads: “I. Is there a business relationship (professionally or otherwise) and/or association with Carl Valentine? If so, please explain the nature of the relationship and/or association in detail.” Mr. McClain responded: “Yes, Mr. Valentine and I have an association whereby we make investments together (unrelated to bail bonding entirely). We have invested in automobiles and real estate, to date.” 6. Question 2 on the February 3, 2016 email is: “Is there a financial agreement(s) and/or contraet(s) between Cannon Surety, LLC, Premier Judicial, and yourself with Carl Valentine? If so, please explain the arrangement in detail and provide a copy of any agreements or contracts that exist (including any retail agreements or other bail bond agreements)” Mr. McClain responded: “No”. 7. Question 3 on the February 3, 2016 email is: “Does Carl Valentine have any financial interest (Cither directly or indirectly) or other association with Cannon Surety, LLC, Premior Judicial or yourself? If a financial interest exists please describe this interest in detail.” Mr. McClain responded: “Not with Cannon or Premier Judicial. As described in my response to Question 1, Mr. Valentine and I do share a direct financial interest with other investments.” 8. To say the least, I was very surprised when T read Mr. McClain’s responses in the February 3, 2016 email, because I had received other documents that indicated that there was a business relationship ‘between Mr. McClain and Mr. Valentine that was related to bail bonding and the bail bonding industry. 9. [had met Mr. Clyde Robert (Robert) Brawley, the defendant in the above-captioned case, sometime prior to June, 2016. He informed me that he was a Member of Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC (PIC), and that PIC was the sole owner-Member of Cannon Surety, LLC. He told me that the other