STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

COUNTY OF McDOWELL SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

FILE NUMBER 19 CRS 590.
)
) DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) STATE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
) ORDER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
v. ) DISQUALIFICATION OF DISTRICT
) ATTORNEY AND/OR APPOINTMENT OF
JENNIFER TIERCE ) A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, MOTION TO
) DISMISS, AND MOTION FOR
) SANCTIONS
)

Defendant Jennifer Tierce, by and through the undersigned, hereby responds to the State’s
Motion for Protective Order, files a Motion for Disqualification of the District Attorney and/or
Appointment of a Special Prosecutor, Motion to Dismiss, and Motion for Sanctions, and
respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order denying the relief requested by the
State and to grant the relief requested by Defendant. In support of her response and motions,
Defendant submits the following in support:

I. FACTS

1. Judge Pool Abused His Authority by Soliciting Sexual Favors, as well as Intimidated His
Victims with the Assistance of Other Government Officials

On or about April 2019, Randy Pool, the then-Chief District Court Judge of District 29A, contacted
Ms. Tierce by sending a message from Mr.his Pool’s government Facebook account, as well as his
government cellphone, and, by utilizing his position and authority, began aggressively soliciting
Ms. Tierce to comply with his sexually predatory actions. In addition to utilizing his government
Facebook and cellphone account, Judge Pool introduced himself as a judge in this district and,
throughout his solicitations from Ms. Tierce, repeatedly ensured that Ms. Tierce was aware of his
position and authority. In addition to utilizing his title as then-Chief District Court Judge, Judge
Pool also attempted to further entice Ms. Tierce with financial support.

Judge Pool had known Ms. Tierce since she was a child and stated that he remembered her from
when she was a child visiting one of Judge Pool’s daughters at his home. Further, indicating that
Judge Pool remembered Ms. Tierce from her childhood, Judge Pool also stated that he recalled
seeing Ms. Tierce and “the sexy black girl” (who was also around 12 years old from the time period
Judge Pool recounted) as they attended sleep overs at his home and with his daughter. Making it
clear that Judge Pool contacted Ms. Tierce from recollections of her as a child, Judge Pool stated
on one occasion “I really never knew you as an adult.”

1
As Judge Pool increased his efforts to manipulate, entice, and prey on Ms. Tierce,1 as well as
increased his sexually aggressive advances, e.g., stating he wished he was with Ms. Tierce “[m]y
hands all over you. Loving your wet cunt [*] like you need it,” Ms. Tierce asked for assistance
paying an insurance bill that she could not afford at that time due to having the responsibility to
care for her sick mother. Feigning sympathy, Judge Pool assured Ms. Tierce that he did not want
her to be in that situation and promised to help Ms. Tierce financially. Specifically, Judge Pool
stated “Yes. I could [] help you.” Ms. Tierce said “I am not your responsibility anyway,” to which
Judge Pool responded “I know. But if I can help I will.” Ms. Tierce then asked “[w]hy would you
want to,” and Judge Pool responded “[w]hy not if I can[?]” Ms. Tierce then followed up stating
“I don’t know. I do need help though. So, it’s up to you, okay[?].”

After Judge Pool had emphasized his position of authority and promised to help a woman he knew
was financially distressed, such that Ms. Tierce began to comply with his sexual demands, Judge
Pool refused to assist Ms. Tierce. At that point, Ms. Tierce realized that Judge Pool had exploited
her by preying on her weaknesses and using his position of authority, Ms. Tierce informed Judge
Pool that she was inclined to disclose his use of authority to manipulate and extort sexual favors.
In response, Judge Pool, once again utilizing his position, stated “It is a felony to blackmail a Judge
. . . . I’ll turn this over to the SBI. I’m very serious,” and that he would “report[] [Ms. Tierce] to
law enforcement for prosecution on this serious felony charge” Ms. Tierce responded by inquiring
“[w]hy would you, as a judge, a married man, & a father send sexually explicit content to someone
& request sexual favors from someone you barely know . . . [?]” Judge Pool, again threatening
Ms. Tierce, stated “[t]hink what you want.” Ms. Tierce replied: “. . . all I did was ask for a little
help, & you said you would, & then you didn’t.”

2. Judge Pool and Other Government Officials, Including District Attorney Ted Bell,
Engaged in a Conspiracy to Silence Judge Pool’s Victims

Immediately thereafter, Judge Pool enlisted the help of other government officials (both past and
present), as well as other individuals, to assist in silencing Ms. Tierce. Although many of those
actors will not be named due to ongoing investigations, Judge Pool was able to place two officers
in Ms. Tierce’s driveway in less than a day. One of the officers was an SBI agent and the other a
member of the local narcotics team, despite this matter having no relations to narcotics in any way.
Those officers instructed Ms. Tierce that she was required to accompany them to the Sheriff’s
Office. When Ms. Tierce asked if she was under arrest, the officers said she was not. Ms. Tierce
asked if she had to go to the Sheriff’s Office because her mother (who she had just driven home
from the hospital while these officers were waiting for her) was sick and needed Ms. Tierce to
remain with her. The officers, once again, stated that Ms. Tierce was required to go with them to
the Sheriff’s office – a statement that is inconsistent with the officers’ insistence that Ms. Tierce
was not under arrest.

Additionally, as Ms. Tierce assisted her mother into her home, the officers began searching her
vehicle without her knowledge or her consent. When Ms. Tierce exited the residence, the officers
were seizing her phone from the vehicle (again, with no consent). The officers asked Ms. Tierce
if the messages with Judge Pool were on the phone they had seized, to which Ms. Tierce confirmed

1
Judge Pool frequently communicated with Ms. Tierce while holding court. As but one of many examples, Judge
Pool stated “I’m in Rton but on last case which lawyers are drawing a consent order in.”

2
that both the Facebook messages and text messages were on the device. In response, the officers
appeared surprised and asked Ms. Tierce to confirm that Judge Pool had communicated with her
using both mediums. When Ms. Tierce confirmed that he had, the officers stated that they did
not believe Judge Pool was being entirely candid, as he had informed them that no text messages,
including the texts threatening Ms. Tierce, existed.

At the Sheriff’s Office, the officers informed Ms. Tierce that she was required to disclose
everything that had happened. Ms. Tierce was never read her rights, never asked if she needed an
attorney, and forced to sign a consent form allowing the officers to seize her phone. After
complying with the officers’ demands, the officers threatened her that she was not to disclose any
information about what had happened or that she “would be in a lot more trouble.” Fearing what
would happen if she spoke – even with an attorney – Ms. Tierce complied with the officers’
demands that she remain silent.

3. The District Attorney’s Office Contact with Ms. Tierce Shows that They Were Aware of
Judge Pool’s Widespread Predatory Actions, but “Chose” to Allow Those Actions to
Continue

On May 14, 2019, at 8:38 am, i.e., during office hours, Corey McKinnon, an assistant district
attorney working for District Attorney Ted Bell, contacted Ms. Tierce in response to her post on
Judge Pool’s Facebook page stating “you will not get away with this.” Mr. McKinnon stated as
follows:

Hey, hope you are doing ok. I noticed a message you had on Randy Pools
Facebook. You know I ran against him last year, and lost. But was wondering
what the comment meant? I would love to hear about it.

Exhibit _____

I understand, was just curious. I had a lot of things I was made aware of during the
election and chose not to use them . . . . I’ve heard it is more of the same.

Id.

While serving as the prosecutorial arm of District 29A with Mr. Bell, Mr. McKinnon took no
actions to stop Judge Pool after learning of another victim. The District Attorney’s office knew of
multiple victims by the time Ms. Tierce went public and did not charge Judge Pool, report him to
the bar and/or Judicial Standards Commission. Thus, although the District Attorney’s office had
the ability to prevent Judge Pool from targeting other victims, the prosecutors in that office “chose”
to do nothing and, as a result, actively facilitated Judge Pool preying on more women, including
Ms. Tierce.

Moreover, as Judge Pool learned that his misconduct was being made public, he deleted his
Facebook page and erased his cellphone messages in an attempt to destroy all evidence of his
criminal actions and ethical violations. Mr. Bell did not file criminal charges against Judge.
Pool for the destruction of public records as required by the North Carolina Public Records Act

3
(N.C.G.S. § 131-1). It is the Defense’s position that by invoking his status as district court judge
when contacting his victims, Judge Pool unwittingly made his comments a matter of public
record.

4. Judge Pool was Forced to Resign from the Bench, His Predatory Conduct was Exposed,
and the District Attorney Takes Actions to Conceal Judge Pool’s Conduct

On November 8, 2019, Judge Pool submitted his resignation that was effective for the same day.
Various news agencies began publishing articles noting that it appeared Judge Pool did not vacate
his position voluntarily. As Judge Pool’s criminal behavior began to be made public,
Mr. Bell immediately submitted charges against Ms. Tierce to the grand jury in an attempt to
silence Ms. Tierce and to send a warning shot to all other victims. As noted above, Ms. Tierce
had still not spoken with an attorney based on the threats from the two officers discussed above.
However, prior to Mr. Bell being able to obtain an indictment to publicly warn other victims to not
speak, a grand juror leaked Ms. Tierce’s name. At that point, Attorney Andrew LaBreche – who
is limited as to what information he can disclose due to the ongoing investigations – immediately
contacted Ms. Tierce warning her that she was about to be used as a diversion by Judge Pool and
Mr. Bell while also attempting to intimidate and silence
the many women that Judge Pool had used his position of authority to prey on for nearly two
decades. As a result, Ms. Tierce spoke with the Daily Courier to prevent Mr. Bell from being
successful in his attempt to hide what Judge Pool had done by intimidating her and countless
other victims. During her meeting with the newspaper prior to the article’s publication, Ms. Tierce
was not accompanied by any other individual.

When asked for comment by the Daily Courier, Mr. Bell made statements publicly exonerating
Judge Pool by asserting that Judge Pool’s actions “did not rise to the level of a crime [and] therefore
he would not face criminal charges.” Exhibit ____. Mr. Bell made this statement knowing that
there were active investigations against Judge Pool into this those very issues. In an effort to
further exonerate Judge Pool, Mr. Bell also stated that ethical misconduct is not a matter for
prosecutors. Specifically, Mr. Bell stated that “[p]eople can discuss all day long what is or isn’t
ethical, but that’s not what we’re tasked with.” Finally, when asked if he was aware of any other
complaints involving Judge Pool preying over vulnerable women in the county’s judicial system,
Mr. Bell provided a knowingly false statement, as follows: “I don’t think I’m aware of any of that
activity. Not that I can think of . . . . That’s not something we would have any authority over.”
Id.2 Mr. Bell’s own statements to the public, which exonerated Judge Pool’s behavior, serves as
the very reason why the public should be made aware that Judge Pool’s behavior is in-fact criminal
and is being covered up by the district attorney’s office.

In contrast to Mr. Bell’s statements addressing issues directly pertaining to this case, all other
attorneys with knowledge of the matter uniformly stated to media outlets they would not comment
on the matter due to ongoing investigations.

2
As other news outlets began reporting on Judge Pool’s actions, Mr. Bell provided additional public statements to
the McDowell News in an effort to further exonerate Judge Pool and incriminate Ms. Tierce. Without explanation
and, as Ms. Tierce’s first appearance date was upcoming, those statements, along with a plethora of negative
comments regarding Judge Pool on the McDowell News’ website, have all been removed.

4
On December 20, 2019 a subsequent article was published detailing additional instances of
predatory conduct facilitated by Judge Pool’s abuse of power. In that article, three
more victims came forward and disclosed Judge Pool’s predatory actions toward them despite
Mr. Bell’s efforts to silence them. The accounts provided by these victims closely match what
occurred when Judge Pool targeted Ms. Tierce. Notably, Judge Pool not only used his position to
solicit these women, he also used virtually identical language when attempting to threaten and
intimidate them by emphasizing how severe the consequences would be if he had the prosecutor
levy charges against them for “extorting” a “District Court Judge.”

Despite the identical nature of Judge Pool’s solicitations and threats to these victims, Mr. Bell
made no attempt to contact these women or press charges against Judge Pool. To the contrary,
Mr. Bell made additional efforts to conceal Judge Pool’s actions. Specifically, on January 6, 2020,
Mr. Bell indicated he planned to file a Motion for Protective Order in Ms. Tierce’s case
seeking to prevent “any information” contained in discovery involving Judge Pool’s (including
communications made by Judge Pool on his government Facebook and cellphone account that he
used during working hours at the courthouse to solicit his victims) actions from being disclosed,
in any manner, to the public.

In support of his motion, Mr. Bell states that Judge Pool’s government records “while,
discoverable, contain personal communications between Pool and third parties.” Mr. Bell also
states that “[g]iven that Tierce and an attorney acting on her behalf have communicated extensively
with the media and have provided numerous documents and statements to them, the State is
concerned that they will continue to do so and will provide the media with copies of anything they
receive through discovery.” Finally, Mr. Bell repeatedly mentions Attorney LaBreche and alleges
that he “communicated extensively with the media and ha[s] provided numerous documents and
statements to them.” Mr. Bell’s fixation with Mr. LaBreche throughout his motion is puzzling
given that Mr. LaBreche has not made an appearance in this matter. Additionally, when contacted
by various media outlets, Mr. LaBreche expressly stated that he would not provide any comments.

Prior to filing his Motion for Protective Order, Mr. Bell unilaterally imposed protective
measures obstructing Ms. Tierce’s counsel and the public from obtaining and/or viewing the
motion and Ms. Tierce’s court file. Ms. Tierce’s counsel asked for a copy of Mr. Bell’s
motion at the clerk’s office, but was told the file was not in their possession as the district attorney’s
office possessed it in court. After doing so, Ms. Tierce’s counsel asked to
review the file. In response, the clerk called the District Attorney’s office and one of the assistant
district attorneys monitored Ms. Tierce’s counsel for the duration of
the time the file was being reviewed. This Court has issued no order authorizing any such
procedure.

II. LAW

Under N.C.G.S. § 15A-908, a party may request a protective order as follows:

Upon written motion of a party and a finding of good cause, which may include,
but is not limited to a finding that there is a substantial risk of harm, intimidation,
bribery , economic reprisals, or unnecessary annoyance or embarrassment, the court

5
 may at any time order that discovery or inspection be denied, restricted, or deferred,
or may make other appropriate orders.

A prosecutor’s request to shield records for public view intersects with both First Amendment
jurisprudence and statutory protections involving public records.

In one of the most often-cited statements describing the public’s right to information involved in
a public trial, Justice Blackmun explained:

Public confidence cannot long be maintained where important judicial decisions

are made behind closed doors and then announced in conclusive terms to the public,
with the record supporting the court’s decision sealed from public view.”

Gannet Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 429 (1979) (Blackmun, J. concurring in part and
dissenting in part) (citation omitted).

In evaluating whether the public, through the media, has a right to obtain and review information
utilized in a criminal proceeding, In re Time, Inc., 182 F.3d 270 (4th Cir. 1999) provided the
following analysis:

A First Amendment right of access applies to a criminal trial, including document

submitted in the course of a trial. This right of access also applies to plea and
sentencing hearings and to documents filed in connection with such hearings. See
In re Washington Post Co., 807 F.2d 383, 388-390 (4th Cir. 1986). Further the same
right applies to certain other pretrial proceedings and filings. See id.; In re State-
Record Co., 917 F.2d 124, 125, 129 (4th Cir 1990); In re Charlotte Observer, 882
F.2d 850, 852 (4th Cir. 1989). In In re Charlotte Observer, for example we held
that a First Amendment right of access applied to documents filed in connection
with a motion for a change in venue in a criminal case. See 882 F.2d at 853-855.
Here, the petitioners question the sealing of documents filed with several pretrial
motions, including motions to dismiss the indictment, to transfer the case, and to
compel discovery. []. We believe that the pretrial motions here are part of the
proceedings to which the traditional First Amendment right of access applies. As
we understand it, only the Government (the Office of Independent Counsel) urges
sealing in the proceedings here. In such proceedings to which a First Amendment
right of access attached, a court must assess whether sealing documents is
“necessitated by a compelling government interest, and . . . narrowly tailored to
serve that interest.” Washington Post, 807 F.2d at 309 [(internal citation omitted)].
In making this assessment, a district court must follow the procedures established
in In re Charlotte Observer. See 882 F.2d at 853. That is the court must (1) provide
public notice that the sealing of documents may be ordered, (2) provide interested
persons an opportunity to object before sealing is ordered, (3) state the reasons,
supported with specific findings, for its decision if it decides to seal documents, and
(4) state why it rejected alternatives to sealing. Id.

6
As stated in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980), “[g]ag orders implicate
the public’s and litigants’ First Amendment rights. On the other hand, they threaten the public’s
First Amendment right of access to the courtroom. A courtroom is a presumptively open space.
In the 1980’s, over a series of cases, the Supreme Court declared a First Amendment-based right
of access to the courtroom – American’s have a right to know what is going on in their courts.”

Without the adherence to these rights of the public, “important aspects of freedom of speech and
of the press could be eviscerated.” Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia,

Protective orders not only implicate fundamental protections guaranteed by the First Amendment,
they also involve additional protections ensured by the North Carolina Public Records Act that are
designed to protect against similar concerns related to concerns with public officials that would
abuse their power.

The North Carolina Public Records Act provides:

. . . public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North

Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore,
it is the policy of this state that the people may obtain copies of their public records
and public information . . . .” NC Gen Stat 132-1(b). Public records are defined as
“all documents, papers, letters . . . books, photographs, films, sound recordings,
magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing records, artifacts, or other
documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics made or
received . . . in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of
North Carolina government or its subdivisions. Agency of North Carolina
government or its subdivisions shall mean and include every public office, public
officer or official (Stat or local, elected or appointed) . . . of any county, unit, special
district or other political subdivision of government.

N.C.G.S. § 132-1.

Social media and cellphone accounts used by government officials affecting governmental
responsibilities, positions, and actions taken using the government official’s authority are public
records subject to both the North Carolina public records laws and the First Amendment guarantees
pertaining to media access. See Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia v. Trump, 302
F.Supp. 3d 541 (2018); Davison v. Randall, 17-2002, 2019 WL 114012 (4th Cir., Jan 7, 2019);
Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S.Ct. 1730, 1835 (2017).

The Act further prohibits the destruction of such documents:

Prohibition – No public official may destroy . . . or otherwise dispose of any public

record . . . without the consent of the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.
Whoever unlawfully removes a public record from the office where it is usually
kept, or alters, defaces, mutilates or destroys it shall be guilty of a Class 3
misdemeanor . . . .

7
N.C.G.S. § 132-3.

Although the First Amendment and North Carolina Public Records Act provide the public with
rights to access information pertaining to criminal trials, the North Carolina Rules of Professional
Conduct prohibit attorneys from making public statements designed to impact the outcome of a
proceedings or that could do so. See Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.6. This prohibition is
heightened for prosecutors under Rule 3.8 of the Rules of Professional Conduct:

Except for statement that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent
of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose,
refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of
heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to
prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons
assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case form making an
extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under
Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

III. ARGUMENT

The First Amendment and statutory protections discussed above are not simply academic
discussions. Rather, they are reflections of the collective experiences of our society as to the
consequences of governmental actors allowed to operate outside of public view. The citizens of
this district have now been forced to endure those very consequences. Although Mr. Bell has
publicly stated his decisions should not be cabined by ethical considerations and that “[p]eople can
discuss all day long what is or isn’t ethical, but that’s not what we’re tasked with,” these statements
are instructive as to the need for public attention to what has, and is, occurring with the government
officials in this district. Contrary to Mr. Bell’s insistence he is not bound by ethics, the ethics rules
to which all attorneys of this state owe allegiance are not mere suggestions; they are codes of
behavior, mandated by the laws of this State. Ms. Tierce requests that this Court disillusion Mr
. Bell of his belief and reassure the public that government actors will be required to abide by
ethical strictures or will be held accountable.

Upon review of the history of North Carolina judicial disciplinary records and caselaw, this matter
involves the most long-lasting and pervasive pattern of governmental abuses of power in the
history of the North Carolina judiciary. Judge Pool used his authority to prey on vulnerable victims
for almost the entire duration of his tenure on the bench. As noted above, Judge Pool’s actions
were facilitated, in part, by the District Attorney’s office. After Judge Pool’s abuse of power was
stopped, the District Attorney’s office then took active steps to protect Judge Pool by intimidating
all of his victims through public statements and charging the first victim to publicly disclose Judge
Pool’s unlawful actions. Further, the District Attorney’s office, after providing false public
comments as to its knowledge of Judge Pool’s actions toward Ms. Tierce and other victims, refused
to even contact other victims that went public with their stories. Mr. Bell’s comments have made
it clear to other victims that Judge Pool did nothing wrong/criminal. His comments send a clear
message to the public that if anyone of them come forward, they will be standing next to Ms.
Tierce facing criminal charges.

8
The District Attorney now continues its efforts to protect Judge Pool by attempting to argue that
all of Judge Pool’s communications with his victims should be shielded from public view by asking
the Court for a protective order. To be clear, Judge Pool communicated with Ms. Tierce and other
victims using his government Facebook and cellphone accounts, during work hours and while
holding court, and accomplished his solicitations through the abuse of his authority entrusted in
him by the people of Rutherford and McDowell County. If there were ever a case in which the
First Amendment’s guarantee that the press be able to observe court proceedings, including
discovery matters, pertaining to a longtime government official’s abuse of power, this is it.

Mr. Bell has identified no compelling governmental need for a protective order. The sole basis for
Mr. Bell’s request is that the information contained in discovery documents “contain personal
communications between Pool and third parties.” As noted above, Judge Pool is a government
official and he used government accounts to contact these victims, i.e., “third parties” while also
invoking his status as a public employee.
while knowing that all individuals with information as to this case and the defenses needed by Ms.
If this Court were to grant Mr. Bell’s motion, it would
effectively enable Mr. Bell to try Ms. Tierce through the abuse of his position and free of any
public scrutiny. The convergence of factors resulting in all individuals with knowledge of this
matter not being able to speak and Mr. Bell’s attempt to completely conceal this matter from the
public is not a coincidence. It is a deliberate, and unlawful, tactic being used by the District
Attorney’s office to thwart the societal protections ensured by both the First Amendment and the
North Carolina Public Records Act. Accordingly, Ms. Tierce asks the Court to deny Mr. Bell’s
motion for protective order.

The Court should not tolerate abuses of power by government officials in any circumstances.
However, given the gravity of what has transpired in this context, Ms. Tierce asks that the Court
send a strong and unequivocal message to Judge Pool and the District Attorney’s office that actions
of this sort will never be tolerated. To that end, Ms. Tierce requests that the Court deny the District
Attorney’s motion for a protective order.

Finally, Ms. Tierce requests that this Court appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the actions
of Judge Pool, the District Attorney’s office, and other actors that Ms. Tierce’s counsel can identify
in conversations with such an independent prosecutor.

NOW COMES Anthony Morrow, attorney of record for Defendant Jennifer Tierce, and
respectfully shows unto the Court the following:

1. The District Attorney’s office for District 29A, including Ted Bell and Corey McKinnon,
have engaged in wrongful actions to shield Judge Pool’s misconduct from the public.

2. As part of those actions, the District Attorney charged Ms. Tierce while knowing that
individuals with critical information as to her defenses are subjected to a confidentiality
agreement and, in furtherance of these efforts to conceal Judge Pool and Ted Bell’s wrongful
actions, the District Attorney now seeks to suppress all information regarding this matter from
the public by requesting a protective order.

9
 3. The information at issue is subject to both First Amendment and North Carolina Public
Records Act protections.

4. The District Attorney has failed to identify any governmental interest to support his Motion
for Protective Order, particularly given the information involved was created by a public
official, using government accounts while invoking his status as a public official.

5. The District Attorney has made inappropriate public comments, used his prosecutorial
authority for abusive purposes, and engaged in conspiratorial actions with Judge
Pool to hide the unlawful conduct that has occurred.

6. The District Attorney’s actions have violated applicable ethics rules, statutory and
constitutional mandates, and have denied Ms. Tierce of the right to a fair trial.

7. The District Attorney’s actions of such severity that the conduct involved has involved
unethical and unlawful conduct that has thrown the judicial and executive institutions involved
into disrepute.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Jennifer Tierce, by and through her counsel of record, prays the
Court that the District Attorney’s Motion for Protective Order be denied, and that Defendant
Jennifer Tierce’s Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Sanctions, and Motion for Disqualification of
District Attorney and/or Appointment of a Special Prosecutor should be granted, and the conduct
of the District Attorney’s office be reported to the North Carolina State Bar.

THIS the 13th day of January, 2020.

By: Anthony R. Morrow

P.O. Box 145
Rutherfordton, NC 28139
Telephone: 828-919-9590
Facsimile: 855-679-2323
Email: anthonymorrowlaw@gmail.com

10
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that the undersigned has this date served this Response to District
Attorney’s Motion for Protective Order, and Defendant Jennifer Tierce’s Motion to Dismiss,
Motion for Sanctions, and Motion for Disqualification of District Attorney and/or Appointment of
a Special Prosecutor in the above-entitled action upon all other parties to this cause by hand
delivering said documents to the Office of the District Attorney in Judicial District 29A.

THIS the 13th day of January, 2020.

THIS the _____ day of _______, 2020
By: Anthony R. Morrow
P.O. Box 145
Rutherfordton, NC 28139
Telephone: 828-919-9590
Facsimile: 855-679-2323
Email: anthonymorrowlaw@gmail.com

11