Showing posts with label Charles Cherry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charles Cherry. Show all posts

Greensboro settles several police discrimination lawsuits

Mayor Pro Tem Yvonne Johnson and Mayor Robbie Perkins
The City of Greensboro and plaintiffs in three lawsuits alleging racial discrimination within the city's police department announced a $500,000 settlement today after city council voted in favor of the settlement in closed session last night. 

Though confident the city would have prevailed in court in two Alexander vs. City of Greensboro cases and the Fulmore vs. City of Greensboro case, Mayor Robbie Perkins and Mayor Pro Tem Yvonne Johnson said they voted in favor of a settlement to save the city money on legal fees, provide a sense of closure, protecting residents from enduring a lengthy trial that would focus on trauma and negativity and allow the city to focus on other important issues like jobs and economic development.

"It's a way to close it with dignity and honor," Johnson said at a press conference this afternoon. City Attorney Mujeeb Shah-Khan, Police Chief Ken Miller and City Manager Denise Turner Roth also answered questions. 

Perkins said the cases have "burdened" the city for a long time, adding that "It's time to move on."

L to R: Shah-Khan, Turner Roth and Miller
Councilmembers Nancy Vaughan, Zack Matheny and Tony Wilkins voted against settling the suits, according to city spokesperson Donnie Turlington. 

The city has already spent $2.3 million in legal fees related to the lawsuits, Shah-Khan said, and Johnson said the city previously offered a larger settlement sum for the cases that was turned down by plaintiffs.

A press release today from Higgins Benjamin, one of the law offices representing the plaintiffs, said the officers feel "vindicated." Here's the full statement:

"After suffering years of hostility during the Wray administration due only to their race and then being vilified in certain local media outlets, 38 of the plaintiffs in the Alexander cases have finally gotten justice.  Those plaintiffs who have now settled their claims against the City and other defendants feel that they’ve finally been vindicated.  These current and former Greensboro Police Department officers have done a great service for this City and civil servants everywhere who have endured a racially hostile work environment.  Likewise, settlement – and the closure it brings – is in the City’s best interest as well."

Miller and Shah-Khan talking before the press conference
The city did not admit liability in the case but did point to numerous ways it has improved police practices and procedures in the wake of the discrimination suits. Former officers Charles Cherry and Joseph Pryor did not agree to the settlement and will continue with their cases with the city, and separate but related cases from current Capt. James Hinson, who is black, and former Chief David Wray, who is white, are not resolved. Hinson's case is scheduled to go to court on Oct. 8.

Perkins said the police department has improved significantly and that he's very proud of the department. In a press release, Perkins acknowledged that the lawsuits stem from a time "in the history of the city and police department where some unfortunate actions on the part of the city and plaintiffs occurred," but continued to say that "confidence in the Greensboro police has been restored."

Activists and community members continue to push for greater oversight for the police department around issues of disparate treatment and racial discrimination, focused primarily on interactions between officers and residents rather than within the department. 

The city's press release cited a survey claiming that more than 80 percent of residents are pleased with the police department's work and said the department implemented 200 of 226 recommendations from a 2008 management and staffing study. Chief Miller said at the press conference that his department is still reviewing 15 of the additional recommendations but said some would have a budgetary impact. A recent presentation by the chief included similar numbers about positive community perceptions of the department but noted a disparity in perceptions based on race.

Charles Cherry has more choice words for mayor, city manager

Former Greensboro police captain Charles Cherry has developed a reputation amongst Greensboro City Council members for his choice words at council meetings to such an extent that they considered limiting speech and the public comment period at their meetings last summer. Mayor Robbie Perkins, a frequent target of Cherry's criticism, explained his thoughts about speakers like Cherry again this April:

"Frankly, the concern I have is that they are taking away from folks that really need our help," he said. "Some may want to come in and don’t because they don’t want to be in middle of acrimonious discussion." 

Today, the saga continues. In a dual complaint/public-information request to the city, Cherry wrote to "Deadbeat, Non Taxpaying, Looking for Preferential Treatment Mayor Perkins and the other eight members of city council." Cherry criticized Perkins' bankruptcy and non-payment of taxes, going on to call City Manager Denise Turner Roth "a corrupt stupid liar."

Cherry has repeatedly argued that the city refuses to investigate his complaints about police misconduct. Roth contends that the city has answered his requests and staff recommends that council not address Cherry directly because of his pending lawsuit against the city. 

There is another gem in Cherry's complaint, too:

"Robbie, never forget, I am strengthened by the Mighty God in Heaven. Greensboro, observe the power of a God-fearing man, as I mentally dominate, control and force this corrupt deadbeat mayor to do his job." 

He ends the letter by requesting the name, dates, result and amount of money spent on each pending or current lawsuit involving the Greensboro Police Department since January 1, 2010, including outside lawyer fees or estimated cost of staff time based on salary. YES! Weekly asked the city to release the results of Cherry's public-information request to us as soon as it is available to him. 

Cherry's case is one of many cited by a report, Our Democratic Mission, released by the Beloved Community Center earlier this year highlighting issues that point to a "subculture of corruption and double standards" in the police department. The center is holding a community meeting on June 13 to discuss issues related to the department.

Document: Beloved Community Center report on police

My staff column in today's paper about police investigations encourages readers to check out an extensive report by the Beloved Community Center for themselves. The report covers various cases that the center says point to a pattern of "corruption and double standards" within the Greensboro Police Department, impacting treatment of officers of color and communities of color.

 You can download the document here.

Day 13: North Carolina Latin Kings on trial

CORRECTION: This post reported in error that FBI Special Agent Doug Rentz met Latin King member Tracy Weyman in Thomasville in September 2011. In fact, Rentz testified that he met Weyman in September 2012. The distinction is critical because September 2012 was after the racketeering indictment was unsealed against the Latin Kings in December 2011.

Rentz testified on Thursday that Weyman gave him a letter from Jason Yates to Cornell that indicated the FBI had been investigating the Latin Kings and that an indictment might be in the offing. Weyman testified today (Friday) that she doesn't remember if she gave the letter to Rentz. Weyman testified that she was appearing in court under subpoena and indicated by her demeanor that she was unhappy about being called to testify. 

ORIGINAL POST: The Rev. Nelson Johnson led a group of about 20 Greensboro residents in expressing concerns about the Greensboro Police Department’s response to an incident in which North Carolina Latin Kings leader Jorge Cornell was shot in August 2008 during a press conference Thursday morning in front of the federal building in Winston-Salem.

Cornell and five other Latin Kings members are being tried on federal criminal racketeering charges. A motion by Cornell’s court appointed lawyer, Michael Patrick, two weeks ago indicated that a Greensboro police employee told prosecutors that one of the prospective defense witnesses had told her that he shot Cornell. Patrick also submitted to the court a Greensboro Police Department e-mail obtained through a public records request by the ALKQN Support group that contains a narrative describing an encounter by a police officer with a Latin King with Chicago connections who indicated he had been sent to kill Cornell.

AJ Blake, a former member of the Greensboro Police Department gang unit who was fired in 2010, has indicated in a complaint filed with Greensboro City Manager Denise Turner Roth that police employee Patricia Caffey told Assistant US Attorney Robert AJ Lang that he shot Cornell. Blake said the statement is completely false and asked Roth to investigate Caffey for violations of truthfulness, malicious gossip and other department directives to repair his reputation.

An Officer Trimnal with the Greensboro Police Department said that he encountered an intoxicated Latin King member stranded on a roadside in Greensboro in November 2010 who said Cornell, in Trimnal’s words, “was about to be ‘taken out’” and “that this ‘shit comes from high up/within.’” Trimnal said in the narrative that he had no charges on which to arrest the man, identified as Gorge Cardenas, and helped him move his vehicle out of the roadway.

“What investigation was generated from this?” Johnson asked. “If indeed Jorge Cornell was shot – and he has been shot – and someone says he’s there to kill Jorge Cornell, we think it merits an investigation. We think the Greensboro Police Department owes an explanation to the public.”

Johnson also said that since the e-mail surfaced, the police department has frozen release of public documents related to the case at the request of the US Attorney’s Office.

“We think this is a violation of citizens’ right to know and part of a protective mechanism to shield the police department from scrutiny,” he said. “Why shouldn’t the public know about someone on the side of the road that says he is here to kill Jorge Cornell?”

Charles Cherry, a former Greensboro police captain who was also fired in 2010, also spoke at the press conference. Cherry said that legitimate complaints against Greensboro police officers are not investigated, citing a complaint he filed against Assistant Chief Dwight Crotts.

Johnson also commented on how Cornell’s representation of himself as someone intent on promoting peace among street organization and on uplifting the community squares with testimony by Latin Kings who have said that Cornell ordered retaliatory strikes against rival groups and ex-members, and took proceeds from robberies.

“I have met the people that are turning evidence for the state,” Johnson said. “I have visited them in jail, and they’ve talked to me about some of those things. They are fighting for their lives, fighting against 15-to-20-year sentences, so they may be stretching the truth.”

Johnson also said that he and other pastors have tried to help Latin Kings obtain employment and housing, while the Greensboro Police Department has tried to hinder them from legitimate employment. Cornell had been living in “sheer poverty,” Johnson said, adding that a member of Genesis Baptist Church had agreed to rent a house to the group before they were arrested on racketeering charges.

One of those cooperating witnesses, Charles Lawrence Moore, finished up his testimony on Thursday morning.

Moore said Cornell ordered him and other Latin Kings to beat up Allan Jordan, a former member, and that they drove over to the Target store where Jordan was employed, but it was closed and there were no cars in the parking lot. Moore testified that an audio recording played for the jury on Wednesday that referenced “Target” had been made prior to the group’s arrival at the store.

Under cross-examination, Moore contradicted Richard Robinson, a fellow Latin King who is also turning the state’s evidence, a second time (see previous post). Moore testified that he and two other Latin Kings had been at Guilford County Court when they assaulted Anthony Vasquez “to make sure that nobody tried to do anything to Mr. Robinson while he was there.”

Robinson, who became close friends with Moore as JobCorps workers before they joined the Latin Kings, testified last week that Moore, along with defendants Russell Kilfoil and Carlos Coleman, had actually been there to intimidate him because he was in bad standing with the Latin Kings at the time.

During cross-examination defense lawyers elicited testimony from Moore that suggested the witness tended to commit criminal acts on his own and without Cornell and other members’ blessing. Moore also testified that Cornell and others benefactors took him into their homes during several episodes in which he was at risk of homelessness and that Cornell tried to help him cut down on his drinking.

Moore testified that the Latin Kings maintained rules against selling drugs and robbing people. Later in the exchange, Patrick referenced a period when Moore stayed with a couple in an apartment at Smith Homes.

“At that point you were living with a member of the Bloods who was selling marijuana,” Patrick said.

“Yes,” Moore replied.

“And you were selling marijuana yourself.”

“Yes.”

Moore also testified that he and Robinson eventually told Cornell about a check-kiting scheme they undertook, but tried to keep it a secret from him for a time.

Patrick attempted to blunt the damage from testimony by Moore and Robinson that Cornell had ordered a drive-by shooting on the apartment where the Blood member was staying to avenge a beating received by Moore.

“After you left Smith Homes, did Mr. Cornell make an effort to work out that problem without retaliation?” Patrick asked.

“No,” Moore responded.

“Did you ever talk to Saralee Gallien and May Young about that effort?” Patrick asked.

“No,” Moore said.

Gallien and Young, with whom Moore briefly stayed last year, are expected to testify for the defense once the government rests its case.

Moore admitted that he was disciplined in the Latin Kings for his abuse of alcohol.

“King Jay put me on a program where he determined when you can and cannot drink,” he said.

Patrick also poked some fun at the prosecution’s decision on Wednesday to introduce as evidence a YouTube video showing Latin Kings marching in Detroit in June 2010 and the government’s characterization of the event as a “Latin Kings conference” in the indictment.

“That wasn’t a Latin Kings conference,” Patrick prodded.

“It was a Social Forum,” Moore testified. He added, “It was just everybody that wanted to do something about the community.”

“And that includes the Latin Kings,” Patrick said.

“Yes,” Moore agreed.

Under cross-examination by Patrick Moore testified that the Rev. Nelson Johnson and Wesley Morris attended the US Social Forum. He didn't recall the names of other people, but indicated there were a sizeable number of other participants in addition to the handful of Latin Kings by virtue of the fact that a bus was chartered for the trip. Johnson and Morris are both employed with the Beloved Community Center, a non-profit social justice organization.

For the remainder of the day, the government presented evidence and testimony that was intended to establish an association among the defendants and build the case that their activities interfered with interstate and foreign commerce.

The latter aspect was the reason for calling Michael Stevenson, the director of loss prevention at Variety Wholesalers. In previous testimony, cooperating defendants had described stealing merchandise off of a truck parked outside Rose’s department store, a wholly owned subsidiary of Variety Wholesalers. Among other things, the government is required to establish that the activity of the defendants affected interstate and foreign commerce to prove a racketeering enterprise.

Asked by Lang about the origin of photo frames, soft drinks and shirts – items that Latin Kings have referenced as being stolen in previous testimony -- Stevenson testified that they had come from outside of North Carolina.

“All of the photo frames that we sell are made in China,” he said, “so they are shipped into a port and transported to our distribution center.”

The drinks, he said, came from Pennsylvania. As for the shirts, he said, “I don’t really know where all of them come from. But if you look at the labels it says Bangladesh, Vietnam, China and Poland. They’re shipped into New York, and brought down to our distribution center.”

Testimony from Richard Taylor Dixon, a former corrections officer at the Person County Jail, and Antwan Lloyd, a prisoner, appeared to be for the purpose of establishing that defendants were members of the Latin Kings. In his opening statement, defense lawyer Patrick told the jury there was no doubt that the defendants were members of the Latin Kings, and none would deny that Cornell was the leader.

Testimony from FBI Special Agent Doug Rentz about items of yellow and black clothing seized from the residences of defendant Russell Kilfoil in December 2011 built on that theme.

Rentz also said he recovered a piece of paper from Russell Kilfoil’s residence containing an individual’s name underscored by an “X” and the notation “green light.”

Lang asked what “green light” meant.

“It’s the go-ahead to beat on site or terminate on site that individual,” Rentz responded.

Rentz testified that he also recovered shotgun shells from among Kilfoil’s possession.

“Is it illegal to purchase shotgun shells?” Brian Aus, Kilfoil’s court-appointed lawyer, asked.

“Not unless you’re a prohibited person,” Rentz responded.

“Was Mr. Kilfoil a prohibited person?” Aus asked.

“I don’t believe he was,” Rentz said, “but I’m not sure.”

Rentz also testified that in June 2011 the US Attorney’s Office advised Jason Paul Yates “we were looking at an indictment against the Latin Kings in Greensboro, and asked if he would want to cooperate.”

Yates, a co-defendant who will stand trial separately because his court-appointed lawyer was unprepared to go forward with the others, has been characterized in previous testimony as a bitter rival with Cornell for control of the North Carolina Latin Kings.

Rentz testified that he met Tracy Weyman, also known as Queen Smiley, at the Thomasville Inn in September 2012, and that Weyman gave him a letter from Yates to Cornell warning that the FBI was investigating the Latin Kings and that an indictment might be coming.

Rentz said he learned there had been a shotgun at the residence of Kilfoil’s girlfriend, Dana Scott, but testified that he was unable to locate any firearms in the course of executing a search warrant. High Point police Detective Dennis Szentmariay, a member of the FBI Safe Streets Task Force, testified earlier in the week that a raid on a Latin Kings house in Greensboro during the same period also failed to recover any firearms.

The government ended the day by putting FBI employee Tara Cataldo, described as a “cyber agent,” on the witness stand. Her testimony, which was tedious overall, covered investigative procedures for mining data from the defendants’ Facebook pages, and was apparently designed to establish relationships among the defendants.

Out of thousands of pages of Facebook data that Cataldo said she obtained from Facebook, the cyber agent cited only a couple messages that appeared to be benign at best and ambiguous at worst.

One exchange between defendant Carlos Coleman and an individual named Jonathan Hernandez begins with Hernandez saying, “Oh yeah, you need to understand that you can’t get out of this. King’s word is gold. You need to stop tripping and handle what you got to handle.”

Coleman responded, “ADR, we will talk in person. Why you talking about nation affairs on Facebook? You need to inbox me.”

“ADR,” which stands for “amor del rey,” or “love of the king,” is a standard Latin King greeting.

Another Facebook message from defendant Samuel Velasquez to Hernandez reads, “King Peace: ADR, bro. What’s good? You like that lion ha ha – the peaceful lion. You like that lion.”

After Judge James A. Beaty dismissed court for the day, Lang apologized to Cataldo in the hallway for causing her to give up her afternoon to testify.

Mixed signals on former chief's handling of grievances

UPDATE: Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling confirms in a letter to then-police Capt. Charles Cherry that Chief Tim Bellamy did say in a May 2010 command staff meeting: "If you think there is corruption here or don't like it here, you need to turn in your paperwork and get the hell out of here."  

ORIGINAL POST: Among the allegations in a federal racial discrimination lawsuit filed by fired Greensboro police officers Charles Cherry, Joseph Pryor and Robert Reyes is that former Chief Tim Bellamy said during a May 2010 command staff meeting: “If anyone thinks there is corruption in the GPD, they need to turn in their paperwork and get the hell out of here!”

Cherry, then a captain, alleges that he was the only one who had written grievances or complaints alleging corruption at the time. The complaint further alleges that white commanders cheered and applauded the chief’s statement.

The city’s answer, filed by lawyers Julie C. Theall and Patrick M. Kane with Smith Moore law firm, makes a whole-cloth denial of the allegation.

That contradicts the findings of Assistant City Manager Mike Speedling, who investigated a grievance by Cherry about the chief’s alleged remarks. Speedling confirmed to YES! Weekly less than two months after the command staff meeting that he determined through his investigation that Bellamy had made the statement, although Speedling said he found nothing inappropriate about it.

“The chief is expressing to folks that if they have such a lack of confidence in the department, then he has a problem with it,” Speedling said at the time. “And we have a problem with it. He’s putting across that if you have that kind of firm belief that the department is corrupt, you need to back it up with facts. There’s a right way and a wrong way to go about that. We haven’t seen any evidence of corruption. He passionately believes the police department is a fine department that doesn’t have corruption in it, and he wants his senior staff to support the department.”

Three officers sue city of Greensboro for racial discrimination

Charles Cherry, Joseph Pryor and Robert Reyes, three officers who were fired by the Greensboro Police Department in 2010 and 2011 after complaining about discrimination and retaliation, have filed suit in federal court against the city of Greensboro.

Read the complaint here (link).

Cherry and Pryor are also plaintiffs in a discrimination lawsuit (background here) against the city involving 39 black officers based on events that took place under the administration of former Chief David Wray before 2006. The first lawsuit, which was filed in 2009, is in discovery. The new lawsuit is based on events that took place under Wray's successors, chiefs Tim Bellamy and Ken Miller.

Cherry, Pryor and Reyes all received “right to sue” letters from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notifying them that the commission was “unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes,” but that the plaintiffs are free to proceed with a private lawsuit.

The three plaintiffs are represented by Anita Earls, executive director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

From the complaint:

The plaintiffs are a captain and two police officers formerly employed by the defendant city of Greensboro’s police department who were targeted for unwanted transfers, received other unjustified disciplinary actions, and ultimately were terminated from employment because of their race and national origin....

In retaliation for their complaints and because of their race and national origin, the GPD discharged all three officers on pre-textual grounds. Their careers shattered and their professional reputations called into question, former Captain Charles Cherry, Officer Pryor and Officer Reyes have been unable to serve the public in the role of police officer as a result of the discriminatory actions of the GPD.


Background here (link).

The lawsuit asks the court to order the city to immediately reinstate the plaintiffs, to quit engaging "in unlawful and discriminatory acts, to institute training for department employees "responsible for making determinations regarding complaints of discrimination" and award compensatory damages to the plaintiffs.

Knight, race, police and job qualifications



Charles Cherry, a former Greensboro police captain, made some remarks during the speakers from the floor portion of last week’s city council meeting about the racialized cast of some statements made by city officials about police administration.

He took direct aim at Mayor Bill Knight, quoting him as stating, “Former Chief Tim Bellamy got his job because he was black.”

The mayor interrupted Cherry, and contradicted him.

“That is incorrect, sir,” Knight said.

Cherry shook his head in disbelief.

“Well, I don’t know what the newspaper said, but that is incorrect,” Knight said. “That is incorrect.”

Knight is technically correct in that he did not say verbatim that Tim Bellamy got his job as police chief because he was black. In fact he did not mention the former chief by name or use the word “black.”

The statement made by Knight during a well-attended candidate forum hosted by the League of Women Voters of the Piedmont Triad at Holy Trinity Episcopal Church on Sept. 15, 2009 was this:

“I would like to be sure going forward that as we select new administration into the police department command group that we’re doing it based on ability and qualifications. We have one chief selected because of race. We had another interim chief — don’t know what his situa — We have another chief who was basically forced out on racial issues. And we have a chief today who, in my opinion, is there primarily because of race.”

At the time, Tim Bellamy, who is black, served as chief of police. Prior to that Bellamy, had served as interim chief following the resignation of David Wray, who is white, in January 2006. Prior to that, Anthony Scales, who is black, served as interim.

There is no doubt that Knight was referring to Bellamy when he said, “We have a chief today who, in my opinion, is there primarily because of race.” And Bellamy's race is undoubtedly black.

Cherry is correct in essence in saying, "Mayor Bill Knight stated that former Chief Tim Bellamy got his job because he was black."

I had the opportunity to further confirm that the remark was directed at Bellamy in a phone conversation with Knight the following Sunday, when he told me: “It does not appear to me that he might have been the most qualified person for the job.”

I have left a phone message to Knight to ask him to explain his disavowal during last week’s city council meeting. I hope he will take the opportunity to clarify the matter.

Cherry considering run for mayor

A former police captain who was fired from the Greensboro Police Department last year after assisting other officers in filing grievances alleging discrimination and retaliation and making his own complaints is considering a run for mayor.

Charles Cherry told a group assembled for a Black History Service of Justice program tonight at an east Greensboro church that he is considering running for mayor and will make a decision in the next couple weeks.

“If I am blessed enough to be elected, I promise you accountability,” he said.

Cherry would be the fourth candidate for mayor in an already crowded field. Mayor Bill Knight has announced plans to run for reelection. At-large Councilman Robbie Perkins and former Councilman Tom Phillips have also indicated plans to seek the seat.

Cherry took sitting council members Mary Rakestraw and Zack Matheny to task for making disparaging remarks about James Hinson, an officer who was recently promoted to captain, in the Rhinoceros Times, asserting that the statements were slanderous and increase the city’s liability in a number of discrimination claims that are working their way through the courts.

He also condemned racial profiling incidents reported by citizens, including an anecdote provided by Councilwoman Dianne Bellamy-Small about a man who reported being repeatedly asked to show ID in downtown Greensboro as a part of youth curfew enforcement that went into effect at the beginning of this year.

Cherry said council should “look at every other alternative” for disposing of its solid waste short of reopening the White Street Landfill. He criticized the council for raising objections last year to acceptance of a $5 million energy-efficiency stimulus grant and then approving it only on condition that it be used throughout the city instead of in targeted, low-income areas in east Greensboro.

“When we got that $5 million, it was for a specific purpose: It was for the less fortunate individuals in this community to give to upgrade their homes – the poor people,” Cherry said. “The first thing the city council wanted to do was send the money back. Why would you want to send $5 million in stimulus money back? Those are questions that we need to ask. And we need to ask them publicly. Finally, they decided to keep the money, and they didn’t utilize it the way the grant asked for. So people who really didn’t need the money were able to have the money, so the poor and working people weren’t the ones who got the money – or all the money.”

Energy and participation flags in police accountability push

A community meeting last night at an east Greensboro meeting found a core group of activists struggling to maintain momentum in a campaign framed as a challenge to the Greensboro Police Department to improve professionalism and accountability.

The Rev. Clarence Shuford, who is president of the Pulpit Forum and who presided over the meeting, struggled to impart a sense of common purpose and solidarity.

“If we live in a community where people are being mistreated, it’s a possibility that we may one day be mistreated,” he said, adding later: “If our police officers are being subjected to injustice, what hope is there for us citizens?”

Among the 30 so participants in the sanctuary at Bethel AMEZ Church, most were familiar faces in the unique coalition that has formed around the cause: two former police officers, a street organization leader and members of his group who have been under withering pressure from the police department over the past three years, white Episcopal clergymen, African-American pastors, college students and young social justice staffers.

Several months after the purging of three black officers who have accused the department of discrimination and the installation of new chief, the campaign for reform has hit a low ebb and the personnel drama that attended the firings has faded from public consciousness for the most part. The campaign has hit a holding pattern of sorts.

The North Carolina Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation, or Latin Kings, has filed a Title VI discrimination complaint against the Greensboro Police Department with the assistance of a Durham-based social justice organization led by a former US Justice Department assistant attorney general.

The Beloved Community Center has processed several citizen discrimination complaints against the department that have been submitted to the Justice Department, along with the initial complaint filed by the Latin Kings. Joyce Johnson of the Beloved Community Center said she has been in frequent communication with representatives of the federal agency, but the Justice Department has yet to formally respond.

Two NC A&T University students have filed a complaint against the Greensboro Police Department contending they were subjected to an unwarranted traffic stop and unlawful detention. It is unclear what progress, if any, the police department has made in investigating the students’ complaint.

Former police Capt. Charles Cherry, one of those terminated, has worked closely with the Beloved Community Center, has advised citizens including the A&T students about redressing complaints, and has also continued to promote grievances by Officer Deborah Thomas, who is currently employed by the department. Thomas’ has enlisted the Rev. Nelson Johnson of the Beloved Community Center as her spiritual counselor under the provisions of the department’s employee assistance program, and contentious meetings between the officer and her supervisor have made their way onto YouTube.

Much of last night’s meeting was devoted to reviewing the events of the past year – testament to either ineffective or hostile media accounts that have failed to generate significant sympathy with the embattled and fired police officers, much less the citizens who have alleged civil rights abuses.

Nelson Johnson described the situation in the police department as “a subculture, that is a way of life inside of the department, that abuses its power and uses double standards.” Considering how many of those present had attended previous meetings it was striking that the pastor assumed his audiences lack of familiarity with the facts of the various cases in his remarks.

“You may have heard that quite a bit, but you have no real way of knowing whether that’s true or not unless your trust level of us is up,” he said. “And given some of the battering that we’ve gotten, I can understand if it is not. And so, tonight, we wanted to take some time to walk somewhat slowly through some of the history of these cases so that you will be certain of the ground you’re standing on. Because we believe this will be a long and difficult struggle. It’s within the police department, but all the city council members have received all the documents – and the city manager. And we believe that the press has not done a good job of investigating and sharing the information with the public. So there must be a group of people who make a commitment that they are going to ensure that the public understands, and then the public can be stronger players in a democratic process.”

Johnson then gave a PowerPoint presentation centered on Cherry, whom he contended was fired for assisting fellow officers with grievances. The official reason for Cherry’s dismissal was lack of discretion for acts including violation of a confidentiality agreement when he revealed that another captain said he could not trust officers who are plaintiffs in a federal discrimination lawsuit. Cherry contends that the remark revealed discrimination and retaliation within the department, and the need to report it as a violation of federal law trumped the confidentiality agreement.

Johnson’s presentation included the following details:

• Officer Joseph Pryor was investigated for an alleged assault against a suspect in which he had fallen during a chase and two white officers told investigators that Pryor was not involved, and in fact they struck the suspect. Initially, Pryor had received finding of unsustained, which was later changed to unfounded on appeal.

• Johnson said a Greensboro police captain violated the state’s personnel privacy law by pulling Officer Frances Banks’ personnel file so that she could compare her with another officer for the purpose of finding deficiencies and blocking her promotion.

• Officer AJ Blake was ordered into a police car at the direction of Assistant Chief Anita Holder after he was observed waving at Jorge Cornell of the Latin Kings, in alleged violation of the departmental directive against associating with a known offender, and threatened with dismissal.

• Officer Robert Reyes reported another officer for abuse of force.

• Capt. Charles Cherry helped all four officers file grievances.

• Chief Tim Bellamy, then nearing retirement, told a meeting of senior-level officers at the police department that if anyone there thought there was corruption, then could turn in their badges “and get the hell out.”

• Assistant Chief Dwight Crotts questioned Cherry about helping other officers file grievances, which is not against any departmental directive.

• Cherry was ordered to undergo a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Psychiatrists ultimately determined that he was, indeed, fit for duty.

“Why was Captain Cherry fired?” Johnson asked. “Because he challenged the GPD’s subculture of corruption and double standards by filing legitimate grievances. That’s our conclusion.”

Johnson also reviewed the case of Cornell, leader of the North Carolina Latin Kings. Johnson said that between 2005 and 2008, Cornell “sought to work with police officers,” noting that he had learned of it earlier in the same day. After the meeting Cornell said he had been approached by Detective Ernest Cuthbertson – at the time the only officer assigned to monitor gangs. Cornell said he initially took a positive view of working with the police.

“That was my goal: To get into the community and let them know that we’re not this organized criminal entity, and also let them know that we’re not going to stand for police brutality,” Cornell said.

Cornell said Cuthbertson wanted him to get his members to sit down with representatives of the Greensboro Police Department and the Guilford County Sheriff’s Office “so they could learn about our leadership structure and pounce on us.”

Cornell said he rebuffed Cuthbertson’s request, and the relationship deteriorated from there.

Because of police harassment, Johnson said many members of the Latin Kings have been “on the margin of being homeless,” and have struggled to remain employed because of having to expend time and money fighting false charges and because of contending with police spooking employers by visiting them and mentioning that their employers were gang members. As a result, Johnson said the Beloved Community Center, Pulpit Forum and Greensboro NAACP have had to provide financial support for members of the group.

During a period of the meeting opened up for comments and discussion, Johnson and the Rev. Randall Keeney brainstormed about the possibility of planning what Johnson termed “a spiritual mass community meeting.”

“As an organizer, my concern is if you don’t have a next step, then you just had a nice meeting,” Johnson said.

Fired Greensboro police officers allege criminal violations in department

Charles Cherry (left) and Joseph Pryor, pictured at the Beloved Community Center, were fired from the Greensboro Police Department in August.

A recent complaint filed by Charles Cherry, with Joseph Pryor, contends that Greensboro police Chief Ken Miller is obligated to initiate a criminal investigation of Assistant Chief Anita Holder, having read a flier alleging that Holder committed the offense of solicitation to commit a felony or misdemeanor.

Cherry and Pryor are former Greensboro police officers who were fired in August.

The elements of the alleged offense submitted by Cherry are as follows: “Assistant Chief Holder solicited me to pursue a medical retirement; Assistant Chief Holder is not a medical professional; Assistant Chief Holder knew or should have known that I had no disability and had not been diagnosed with a disability, at the time she solicited me to take a medical retirement.”

Chief Ken Miller told me earlier this week: “The problem is that there is no substance to the allegation. Just look at Cherry’s letters in their totality. I don’t need to say anything more. And quite frankly I won’t. I’m done addressing Charles Cherry. Charles Cherry has litigation as his next avenue of appeal. He chooses not to pursue it. I encourage him to pursue it.”

Assistant City Manager Denise Turner said the city manager’s office would also decline to comment.

Cherry contends that under the Departmental Directive 1.5.12 Duty Responsibilities, the department is required to investigate the allegation. The directive states,

Employees shall perform all duties as required by law and competent authority, regardless of their specific assignment or job description. They shall perform their duties in such a manner as to effectively and efficiently carry out the functions and objective of the department. Employees assigned to specialized duties are not relieved of the responsibility of taking prompt action in the matter of any violation of law rules of the department coming to their attention, unless specifically authorized by competent authority, directive or procedure.


Cherry’s most recent complaint also alleges a conspiracy to unlawfully arrest Pryor and him at a community meeting at Smith Senior Center earlier this month for the purpose of discrediting them.

“Police Chief Ken Miller’s plan was to ask me and citizen Pryor to leave, once we asked a question, and not allow us to respond ‘quick enough.’ Chief Ken Miller would then order the arrests of me and citizen Pryor, charging us with 2nd degree trespass."

Numerous police officers attended the meeting, although Miller and Lt. Mike Richey, commander of the Eastern Patrol Division, handled the vast majority of the presentation. The complaint references a brief exchange between Cherry and Assistant Chief Ron Rogers, displaying a slice of police vernacular.

Cherry: “Man, it’s thick in here. What’s up, ya’ll trying to do us?”

Rogers: “Naw, Richey just wanted to bring his CRT team.”

I asked Jeffrey Welty, a faculty member at the UNC School of Government with expertise in criminal law and procedure, whether there is any statutory requirement that the police department investigate Cherry’s allegations. He responded that he could not comment on departmental directives, but as a matter of law the answer is no.

“State law doesn’t create an obligation on the part of law enforcement to investigate every time a citizen alleges a violation of law,” Welty said. “In deciding whether to investigate a particular complaint, law enforcement would consider such factors as who’s doing the complaining, the seriousness of the alleged crime, whether there’s other evidence that would suggest the complaint is well founded, what else they have going on right then and so on.”

Cherry also continues to insist that the department refuses to investigate an allegation that Assistant Chief Dwight Crotts violated the state personnel privacy act by directing speaking to a subordinate who is conducting an internal investigation on another officer about information from Cherry’s personnel file.

I asked Howard Neumann, an assistant district attorney in the Guilford County District Attorney’s office, if Cherry’s allegation against Crotts was something his office would like to see investigated so they could make a determination about whether to prosecute.

“All of his allegations have to do with an employment issue, and that’s not something we would be interested in looking into,” Neumann said. “It sounds like an internal police department matter, which I’m confident they can look into and resolve in an appropriate fashion.”

What about the allegation that Holder violated the state law against solicitation to commit a felony or misdemeanor?

“He doesn’t allege anything that I think warrants a criminal investigation,” Neumann said.

Cherry and Pryor received letters from City Manager Rashad Young turning down their termination appeals. Courtesy of the News & Record, the letters are available here in a combined document.

The city manager cites a handful of reasons for Cherry’s dismissal.

“You acknowledge that you agreed to keep confidential the details of the Leadership Team meetings held during 2007 and 2008,” Young writes. “However, you alleged that discriminatory comments were made in the meetings; and therefore, you were no longer required to respect the confidentiality of the meetings. I do not find your reasoning to be persuasive.”

Cherry had continuously alleged in various written complaints that “in a command staff-only meeting, Captain JE Wolfe stated that he did not trust the individuals on the EEOC lawsuit.”

Names of police employees are redacted in Young’s termination letter to Cherry, but their identities can be contextually inferred.

“Captain [Wolfe] stated that he expressed concern regarding the impartiality of decision making of command-level individuals involved in the EEOC lawsuit," Young writes. "This statement does not constitute discrimination or retaliation as those terms are defined by federal or state law or city policy.”

The two command-level employees signed on to the EEOC complaint, which has now become a federal discrimination lawsuit, were Cherry and Rogers. They remain plaintiffs.

Young also faults Cherry for reading his response to a fitness-for-duty recommendation aloud to the eastern patrol division lineup in June, calling the act “inappropriate and disruptive.” Two psychologists ultimately determined that Cherry was mentally sound.

Later, Cherry sent out a mass e-mail to fellow police employees explaining his administrative status.

“This issue serves to illustrate your lack of discretion and judgment,” Young writes. “You fail to realize that as a command-level officer you are expected to play an instrumental role in maintaining an efficient workplace. Your e-mail and personal responses to the masses regarding your supervisors’ decision to evaluate your fitness for duty undermined the command structure. An effective force requires the respect, self-discipline and judgment of its officers. By expressing your concerns to your subordinates, you disregarded and undermined the chain of command. Your comments, without the benefit of a response from your supervisors only serve to bring rancor, speculation and distrust to the operation and command hierarchy of the department.”

Young also noted, “You have repeatedly stated that [Tim Bellamy] was a complainant on an EEOC lawsuit against the city of Greensboro. Furthermore, you contended that [Bellamy] withdrew his name from the lawsuit just prior to his appointment as [chief]. The charge of truthfulness is unsubstantiated based on the disputed testimony of [Bellamy] and reserve officer [Stephen L. Hunter].”

“There is no evidence, whether disputed or otherwise, that suggests that [Tim Bellamy] was ever a complainant on an EEOC lawsuit against the city,” Young continues. “Moreover, there is no evidence that [Bellamy] withdrew from an EEOC lawsuit in exchange for his promotion to [chief]. This allegation was not confirmed or corroborated and you did not verify the authenticity of this allegation. This issue yet again demonstrates a lack of discretion and judgment from a command-level officer of the GPD.”

While no lawsuit had been filed at the time of Bellamy’s involvement, contrary to the city manager’s assertion, a copy of Hunter’s notarized letter submitted by Cherry states, “During the period surrounding the resignation of former chief of police David Wray I was one of a few officers tasked with collecting EEOC complaint forms from black police officers who felt they had been victimized by discriminatory or racist practices by David Wray or those within his administration. Among the complaint forms I collected was one from then Major TR Bellamy.”

Hunter said that when Bellamy was appointed acting chief he destroyed the complaint form according to Bellamy’s wishes before turning it over to the black officers’ lawyers.

Young made the determination that Cherry violated the department’s Malicious Criticism and Gossip directive by commenting on Bellamy’s involvement with the EEOC matter, adding, “This issue yet again demonstrates a lack of discretion and judgment from a command-level officer of the GPD.”

The city manager appears to walk a tightrope on the matter of Cherry filing grievances on behalf of both himself and other department employees.

“Every employee has a right to file grievances and raise concerns they believe affect their work environment,” Young wrote. “As an employer, we have an obligation to review and make determinations relative to those claims. However, employees also have an obligation to exercise sound judgment and use good discretion as they pursue or advance those grievances in a reasonable manner.”

Among those who received assistance from Cherry on grievances was another plaintiff in the federal discrimination lawsuit, Officer Joseph Pryor.

Young states in his final appeal letter to Joseph Pryor, dated Oct. 7, that the relevant questions in the case are whether the officer had violated the department’s truthfulness directive by continuing to state that his signature had been improperly placed on a Notice of Administrative Investigation form and whether he violated the directive on malicious criticism and gossip by continuing to press the issue. In both cases, Young determined that the answer was yes, and that termination was the appropriate punishment.

Pryor has continuously asserted that the professional standards division discriminated against him in its handling of an administrative investigation into whether he kicked a citizen arrested at Smith Homes in the stomach in January 2009.

“Your support for this contention, in part, is [Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling’s] statement that the results of the use of force investigation against you were due to PSD’s ‘discrimination or incompetence,’” Young writes. “However, you fail to mention that [Speedling] made that statement based on your claim that the complainant failed to identify you as the officer who allegedly assaulted him. The facts of the use of force investigation are clear. The complainant described the officer who allegedly kicked him as being ‘6’0”-6’1” in height, dark complexion, with a close haircut.’ The complainant made this description to investigators in his initial interview and in a subsequent interview. As you know, you were the only African-American officer at the scene. Accordingly, PSD’s investigation was neither the result of discrimination nor incompetence.”

Pryor told YES! Weekly that those details simply were not in the description provided by the complainant, contrary to Young’s assertion, and only cropped up after the criminal investigation division completed its probe to determine if charges should be filed and passed the case along to the professional standards division, which handles possible administrative violations.

“There’s no ‘six-foot-one, dark complexion’ in there,” Pryor said. “Corporal Cundiff, who conducted the criminal investigation, said the subject was unable to give a physical description. And then in the administrative investigation it became ‘approximately six-one, dark skinned.’”

As Young notes, Pryor was ultimately “vindicated of any wrongdoing” in the administrative investigation. Yet in the process, Pryor contends, Sgt. Mike Loy disregarded available information that would have exonerated him and, if anything, shifted suspicion to the two white officers, who were also on the scene at the time of the arrest, and who also were ultimately cleared of wrongdoing.

“You have two Caucasian officers saying they struck the guy, and I didn’t touch him,” Pryor said. “Why do you want to continue to investigate me after two people said, ‘No, Pryor didn’t strike him?’

“I have medical records to prove that I couldn’t do what I was accused of doing,” he said. “I was out for five months after that with a strained [medial collateral ligament of the knee].”

Cpl. Jay Atkins indicates in a professional standards interview conducted by Loy in June 2009 that police had been monitoring Smith Homes for open-air drug sales when Cpl. WD Coble decided to stop Terrance Lipscomb after observing him throw something down on the ground. Atkins patted Lipscomb down, and Lipscomb ran. Several officers gave chase, including Pryor.

Officer HW Cox, who arrived on the scene a little later is heard in an audio recording telling Loy from a separate interview conducted in June 2009 that he saw Pryor “hit the subject with his two hands” during the chase, causing both the officer and the suspect to fall to the ground. Cox said soon afterward he watched Atkins come over and jump on Lipscomb. Atkins told Loy he pinned Lipscomb to the ground by kneeling with one knee on the suspect’s back and the other on the ground.

Cox said when he caught up with Atkins and Lipscomb, the suspect had placed his hands under his stomach so that the arresting officers could not handcuff him. Cox used a method prescribed in training known as super scapular strikes to bring Lipscomb into compliance. In plain English, it means he hit him in the shoulder blades to make him pull his arms out.

“I hit him with the super scapular strikes,” Cox can be heard saying. “I issued the strikes and his arms came out, and we got him cuffed, adding that a number of officers “piled up on” Lipscomb “pretty deep” to bring the suspect under control.

Even though Atkins acknowledged placing his knee on the suspect’s back and Cox candidly discussed hitting him in the shoulder blades, the interviews remained focused on whether Pryor kicked him in the stomach, as alleged by Lipscomb.

That assertion was corroborated by a civilian witness, said Cpl. Jack Steinberg, who also worked on the administrative investigation.

“I don’t know what she’s saying because he was on the ground holding his knee,” Cox is heard saying in an audio recording. “You might want to talk to her about that because she’s lying to you.” He added later: “Pryor had no contact with him at all. The only ones who had any contact with him at all is me and Jay.”

Cox stated unequivocally in response to Steinberg’s questions that he did not observe Pryor kicking Lipscomb.

After the arrest, Lipscomb was placed in a squad car, at which point officers on the scene said he first made the allegation about Pryor kicking him in the stomach. Cox recalled that Pryor was in such bad shape that he drove him to the hospital.

Atkins was asked whether Coble was notified about the allegation made by Lipscomb.

“We did notify Corporal Coble, told him that the guy was alleging that Pryor kicked him,” Atkins said. “Which I told him he didn’t kick him because Pryor was never even around there to make contact with him.”

Loy said today that he could not comment on the matter because all the information is in Pryor’s personnel file, and therefore protected from public disclosure.

Pryor continuously filed grievances up his chain of command to Young himself, urging them to review the professional standards division’s handling of the investigation.

“I was saying, ‘When was Mike Loy going to be investigated for omitting information from an investigation?’” Pryor said. “‘When was Shawn Barnes going to be investigated for adding my physical description?’ To this day, that hasn’t been investigated.”

Barnes could not be reached for comment.

Pryor also complained that his signature was forged, copied, scanned in or otherwise improperly placed on a Notification of Administrative Investigation form. Then Chief Tim Bellamy assigned Capt. Therron Phipps, commander of the operational support division, to conduct the investigation. He found no wrongdoing on anyone’s part.

“I reviewed the audio recording of Cpl. [Steinberg] with you,” Young states in the appeal letter. “He states that he is giving you the Notice of Administrative Investigation form and asks that you read and sign the form. There is a pause when presumably you are reading the form. I then heard the sound of writing. At no point during the recording do you refuse to sign the form or make any comment about the structure of the form or the presence of a signature of any person other than Cpl. [Steinberg]. It is reasonable to conclude that you did in fact sign a Notice of Administrative Investigation form, as requested by Cpl. [Steinberg].”

Pryor responded in an interview with YES! Weekly: “What he neglects to tell you is that the person whose name is on the document didn’t interview me. It had Sgt. Barnes’ name on it when he had already been transferred out of that unit. The person who interviewed me was Cpl. Steinberg. They said they were in transition, and Sgt. Barnes left the notification. If Steinberg is in training, why is he conducting an interview with me? Why would Sgt. Barnes leave a notification? When you sign a notification as an investigator, you’re signing it to say you witnessed me signing it. If you left it for me to sign, how could you witness me signing it?”

Young dismissed the significance of the notification.

“It follows then that either Sgt. [Barnes’] signature was added to the form after you signed it or your signature was added on a different Notice of Administrative Investigation form bearing Sgt. [Barnes’] signature. Neither scenario is reasonable. This form has no constitutional or legal value. The GPD uses this form to notify the employee of the scope of the investigation. There would be no compelling reason to add your signature to this form.”

Young writes that Pryor’s continued assertions that he did not sign the form are untruthful. The city manager also found the police officer in violation of the malicious criticism and gossip directive on the basis that “your allegations of discrimination and incompetence against the PSD tended to impair the operations of the department by asserting that its administrative investigations are dishonest and discriminatory.”

Pryor’s colleague, Charles Cherry, has leveled the accusation of untruthfulness at numerous employees in the police department, along with staff in the city manager’s office and human resources. In that sense, the city manager’s high-minded words at the end of the appeal letter sound as if they could just as easily reflect the sentiments of those on the other side of the dispute.

“A police officer has the ability to deprive a person of life, liberty and property based in large part on the credibility of their word,” Young writes. “Accordingly, police officers must be absolutely truthful in all matters. An officer whose truthfulness is at issue is unfit to exercise the powers vested in the police department.”

Citizen Cherry

Former Greensboro police Cap. Charles Cherry discloses in a memo that City Manager Rashad Young has turned down his termination appeal. Cherry had been commander of the department's Eastern Division until the time he was placed on administrative duty status in June. He is the highest ranking officer to have been pushed out of the department this year.

Cherry announces in the memo that a community meeting will be held on Nov. 11 at 6 p.m. at Bethel AME Church to "discuss police accountability and professionalism, among other things." Meanwhile, the police department holds an official community forum on the same night for citizens in the Western Division at Lewis Recreation Center. The main focus of that and three other community meetings will be crime statistics and call prioritization, but a press release also promises that Chief Ken Miller will "review changes in GPD including mission and core values revisions, the restructuring process, core strategies and discipline process revisions."

Color.


Three GPD officers appeal discipline to city manager

Officer Robert Reyes, Officer AJ Blake, Capt. Charles Cherry and Officer Joseph Pryor (l-r) attended a community meeting held to build support for them on Sunday.

Three Greensboro police officers, including two who have been terminated, have filed disciplinary appeals to City Manager Rashad Young.

I. Cherry

Capt. Charles Cherry was terminated on Monday by then-interim Chief Dwight Crotts for sustained violations of the department's general conduct, malicious criticism and gossip, and discretion directives, according to Crotts' personnel order.

As he has in the past, Cherry acknowledges in his appeal that he did take a comment by Capt. John Wolfe to the effect that he did not trust officers on a federal discrimination lawsuit out of the room after signing a confidentiality agreement, but Cherry contends, "The moment the comment became part of a discrimination allegation, that fact outweighed the confidentiality agreement."

Cherry responds to the finding that he violated the department's malicious criticism and gossip directive by noting that "interim Chief Crotts gave no reference in the Disciplinary Action Taken Memo as it relates to how I violated" the directive.

In responding to the third sustained violation, Cherry writes, "It should be noted that I was never originally alleged to have violated Departmental Directive 1.5.9: Discretion. Interim Chief Crotts would have to show the elements of discretion, and how I violated the specific directive."

Cherry quotes from a notification from Sgt. Alan McHenry, a professional standards investigator, outlining how he was placed under investigation for sending an e-mail to subordinate officers explaining his administrative status in the context of a pending fit-for-duty evaluation (later resulting in the captain receiving a clean bill of health from two different psychologists).

Cherry quotes McHenry as saying, "To provide this statement to members of the division under his command, Captain Cherry has encouraged their focus on his personal disagreements with personnel decisions made by his supervisors regarding his actions. In doing so, he has raised questions within the department regarding the competency of members of the command staff, which cannot be answered because of personnel privacy laws."

Cherry responds: "The e-mail does not speak of any disagreement I have with the decisions made. The e-mail relays accurate information regarding my fitness for duty and being banned from Maple Street. Mr. [Michael] Speedling [assistant city manager] has stated that an officer was the victim of 'discrimination or incompetence' by professional standards. Captain [Jane] Allen is the commander and approves all investigations conducted by professional standards, to include the investigation Mr. Speedling referred to. That would make Captain Allen incompetent, according to Mr. Speedling. Why would it not be expected that the citizens and officers would not question the competency of GPD command staff, especially if Mr. Speedling the assistant city manager over police makes such a statement?"

Cherry quotes McHenry as saying, "Due to Cherry's information being provided to the media, the Greensboro Police Department's credibility and ability to perform basic functions to the community are called into question. This is evidenced by comments from people in the community. Because this matter is a personnel issue, and therefore subject to NCGS 160A-168: Privacy of Employee Personnel Records, the department and city are unable to respond to the questions Captain Cherry has raised resulting in heightened community concern."

Cherry responds, in part: "The fact that it was given to the media is not a problem, because it is accurate."

Cherry references an e-mail from Councilman Zack Matheny, which he says "raises a myriad of concerns," including, "How can constituents simply asking a councilmember to investigate reports of corruptive behavior in our police department be harassing?

Cherry cites a News & Record article stating, "Young said he created the position (Michael Speedling's position) to deal with one of the city's most pressing issues — discipline and unresolved personnel problems, including what Young said were too many US Equal Opportunity Employment discrimination complaints."

Supported by a Dayton, Ohio area news story, Cherry writes, "Mr. Young, while in Dayton, if internet sources are correct, you have dealt with the Department of Justice, before, relating to a racial discrimination suit settled for four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000)."

Supported by a post by a Dayton blogger, Cherry writes, "Mr. Young, if internet sources are correct, Mr. Bill Hill was paid for one hundred forty five thousand ($145,000) for wrongful termination."

Cherry also addresses an allegation that he violated the department's truthfulness directive, which Crotts eventually found to be not sustained. Cherry asks that the finding be changed to unfounded.

"Chief [Tim] Bellamy was caught lying to the board during the hearing," Cherry writes. "Former Chief Bellamy stated under oath that he had never been discriminated against while at the GPD, and had never completed an EEOC complaint form. Reserve Sergeant Steve Hunter, Attorney Ken Free and Federally Filed litigation paperwork states to the contrary of former Chief Bellamy." (For good measure, Cherry throws in a statement from Greensboro NAACP President Cardes Brown.

II. Pryor

Officer Joseph Pryor was terminated by Crotts on Aug. 26 for sustained violations of the department's truthfulness and malicious criticism and gossip directives.

Pryor's appeal does not explicitly state the department's articulated allegation that he violated the truthfulness directive, but references "the scanned, forged, copied or otherwise improper placement of my signature on a document."

Pryor states that "this same investigation was reviewed by Mr. Speedling who stated that the results was due to 'discrimination or incompetence' by professional standards."

Pryor says the sustained violation of the malicious criticism and gossip directive is also related to "me stating in grievances that someone in professional standards forged, scanned, copied or improperly placed my signature on a document."

Pryor writes to Young, the city manager, about a July 26 conversation between the two: "I informed you that I came forward with allegations regarding an investigation conducted on me. The findings in the investigation was changed (in my favor) from not sustained to unfounded. All of my allegations were not fully investigated and the investigation was then turned on me, improperly alleging that I was untruthful. The same allegation (regarding the document) was in my original grievance, in which the investigation was changed to unfounded. You, Mr. Young, replied, 'You kept pushing it.'"

III. Reyes

Officer Robert Reyes received a division-level reprimand from Crotts on Monday based on sustained violations of the department's conduct towards public and employees and discretion directives.

Reyes contends in his appeal that "interim Chief Crotts condoned the monitoring, following and 'shadowing' of me by officers of my rank and time in grade. The officers, unknown to me, took notes on my activities and gave the information to my supervisor, (then) Sergeant Barwick. Sergeant Barwick then used the information, detrimentally against me (with the ultimate goal of terminating me). Sergeant Barwick never confronted me on the information or attempted to foster my improvement. These actions were because I reported what I believed to be excessive force by a fellow officer. [emphasis mine]

An alleged violation of the truthfulness directive was found to be not sustained by Crotts. Reyes is appealing to have it changed to unfounded.

"I was truthful in all information given as it related to the investigation of Officer Pinson stating that Captain Cherry had been fired [in mid-June]," Reyes writes.

Reyes says, "Sergeant Isom and Captain Smith allowed a 'Gestapo Style' interrogation of me by Corporal Oligmueller. The 'Gestapo Style Interrogation' (which was administrative in nature) included: A polygraph that was not warranted because Captain Cherry was never interviewed, a total of six (6) hours of interrogation (the issue being one question (Did Officer Reyes hear Officer Pinson say that Captain Cherry had been fired), utilizing a polygraph machine with inoperable parts (non-functioning printer as stated to me by Corporal Oligmueller)."

The appeal continues, "Sergeant Isom and Captain Smith allowed a 'Gestapo Style Interrogation' of Officer Royal (which was administrative in nature), which included: A total of approximately six (6) hours, Officer Royal, body limp, was called a lie [SIC] approximately twenty (20) times, Officer Royal's job was threatened, asked the same question approximately thirty three (33) times, Officer Royal was lied to in attempts to get Officer Royal to change his (Officer Royal's) story, Officer Royal was called 'LYNCHMAN' by Corporal Oligmueller during Officer Royal's polygraph. Assistant Chief Ron Rogers and Captain BL James can attest to the inhumane treatment of Officer Royal. The polygraph of Officer Royal is on video."

In contrast, Reyes says, "Officer Pinson had taken medication (for anxiety) which relaxed his nerves approximately two (2) hours before taking the polygraph. Corporal Oligmueller had knowledge of this, and still conducted a tainted test."

Editorial note: Two independent, anonymous sources state that both Reyes and Royal failed the polygraph, while Pinson passed.

As for the two violations that were sustained against Reyes, the officer contends, "I was not originally charged with conduct towards public and employees. Interim Chief Crotts would have to elaborate on why I was charged with this particular violation.... I was not originally charged with discretion. Interim Chief Crotts would have to elaborate on why I was charged with this particular violation."

Reyes writes, "Lieutenant Brodie and Captain Smith informed me that I may be extended an additional ninety (90) days as it relates to the professional standards program. It should be noted that in my third quarter, fourth quarter (5.69 (Level 3)), and annual evaluation (5.16 (Level 3)), I am clearly performing at an acceptable level. Interim Chief Crotts through discrimination, retaliation and fostering a hostile work environment placed me in the professional standards in an attempt to terminate me.

"Please have interim Chief Crotts release me from the program immediately upon my physical return to regular duty."

Pastors request DOJ intervention in GPD

The Rt. Rev. Bishop Marble, assisting bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, and the Rev. William Barber II, president of the North Carolina conference of NAACP branches, were among dozens of clergy who signed on to a request yesterday afternoon at Mount Zion Baptist Church requesting that the US Department of Justice intervene in what is called "a developing and dangerous crisis within the Greensboro Police Department."

The posted document is an exact copy circulated among clergy members prior to yesterday's meeting to solicit their signatures.

On a related note, Officer Robert Reyes was expected to learn whether he has been fired this morning, while Capt. Charles Cherry will meet with interim Chief Dwight Crotts at 2 p.m. to learn whether he has been terminated.

UPDATE: According to an unconfirmed anonymous report, Cherry has been terminated on the basis of sustained allegations of general conduct, discretion and malicious gossip violations. Reyes has received a division-level reprimand based on a sustained allegation of conduct toward public and employees and will return to duty.

Letter Requesting DOJ Investigation of Greensboro Police Department, Aug. 28, 2010


Cherry: Crotts' decision to delay termination calculated to lessen community meeting's impact

Greensboro police Capt. Charles Cherry: "I was informed that there is one (1) of many community gatherings at Mount Zion Church on Alamance Church Road, on Sunday August 29, 2010 at 3:00pm. This gathering is being publicized and according to sources will address police corruption. I believe Interim Chief Crotts is delaying informing me of his decision to less the impact of this gathering. My point being that Officer Pryor's unlawful corruptive termination was on Thursday morning. Interim Chief Crotts appears to be thinking that holding off on my unlawful corruptive termination may lessen the impact of the community gathering."

Cherry's termination hearing was held on Wednesday. The suspended captain has been told that interim Chief Dwight Crotts will inform him of his decision on Aug. 30 at 2 p.m.

Cherry: "The termination decision meeting only takes about ten (10) minutes."

Memo From GPD Capt. Charles Cherry to City Manager Rashad Young, Aug. 27, 2010


Cherry: details of internal investigation on truthfulness charge

Greensboro police Capt. Charles Cherry faces a termination hearing tomorrow based on an allegation that he violated the department's truthfulness directive. A memo from Cherry to City Manager Rashad Young today details an internal investigation into whether the suspended police captain was untruthful in his representation of former Chief Tim Bellamy's involvement in a federal discrimination lawsuit.

From the memo:

On July 16, 2010, while I was in the professional standards division, I spoke with Sergeant AT McHenry, and Corporal MJ Harris was present. Sergeant McHenry is investigating me regarding an alleged truthfulness violation. Sergeant McHenry stated to me that based on a complaint I had filede, he had spoken again with attorney Ken Free. Sergeant McHenry stated he needed me to waive attorney client privilege to confirm some allegations I had made in my document. I stated, "Why didn't you just ask Ken if he told me that Bellamy was on the lawsuit and he would've told you yes? Why didn't you ask Ken if he told me that Bellamy was off the lawsuit and he would've told you yes?" Sergeant McHenry then replied, "I did ask him, and you know what he said? He (Ken Free) said, "I don't recall. You (Cherry) should get your facts straight."


Handwritten notes submitted to Young that Cherry represents as being McHenry's interview notes include the following (some parts are illegible): "Ken Free interview; 6-25-10; he has never represented Chief Bellamy on any lawsuit"... "His group sent out the forms — because there were so many to do individually — ones returned became part"... "Asked if he remembered telling anyone that Chief Bellamy had signed on to the lawsuit or signed a complaint — does not recall."

Cherry remarks, "If attorney Free does not recall if he told anyone that Bellamy had signed onto the lawsuit or signed a complaint, that means attorney Free could have told someone, 'Bellamy is on the suit and Bellamy is off the suit.'"

Based on McHenry's notes, Cherry characterizes the professional standards investigator's representation that he asked Free whether he ever told anyone that Bellamy was on the lawsuit and then off the lawsuit as a "lie."

Cherry said Free has told him that McHenry has requested that he possibly be a witness for the department at tomorrow's termination hearing.

Cherry suggests that McHenry's handling of his investigation undermines trust in the professional standards division.

"I believe Sergeant McHenry's actions support Assistant City Manager Mr. Michael Speedling's statement, to [Officer Joseph Pryor], that the results of the officer's investigation is due to 'incompetence or discrimination,' on the part of professional standards."

Meanwhile, District 3 Councilman Zack Matheny has requested that the Rev. Cardes Brown, president of the Greensboro branch of the NAACP, desist from sending him further e-mails calling for a US Department of Justice investigation of the police department.

Yesterday, Matheny replied to the NAACP e-mail, carbon-copying the city manager and interim Chief Dwight Crotts, among others:

I receives another request from these people. I have responded 4 times.

Is there any precedent for legal action or charges of harassment that
can be taken if they continue to harass me for something I have
already responded to?

Rashad, Denise, Dwight,

Please respond,

Zack

Cherry: Recordings needed for defense denied by professional standards

Greensboro police Capt. Charles Cherry says in a memo to City Manager Rashad Young today that the professional standards division is denying him access to recordings of investigative interviews of himself and Officer Joseph Pryor that the two officers need to share with their lawyer in Durham to prepare for their defense.

Pryor's termination hearing is scheduled for Aug. 24, while Cherry's is set to take place the following day.

On a related note, Cherry reports that he is receiving the earned compensation that was previously denied to him.

Denial of Additional Recorded Interviews