December 5, 2011

Attorney At Law, Mr. William Hill

500 W. Friendly Avenue, Suite 100
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402


Dear Mr. Hill:
I am in receipt oI your letter dated December 1, 2011, in regards to Greensboro Police Sergeant
Darrin 'D.J. Davis. First, I would like to make you aware oI arguably the most powerIul
Ireedom given to an American citizen. I am reIerencing our First Amendment Right to Freedom
oI Speech. Nothing that I have stated about Sergeant Davis or any other Greensboro Police
OIIicer is untrue. For, iI I were publicly stating untruths about other citizens/police, there are
laws in place to provide proper redress.

Mr. Hill, you and I both know that I speak with undeniable veracity, thus leaving those
responsible Ior investigation oI my complaints, paralyzed to act. When the GPD discriminates
against citizens/employees, lie in investigations, commit criminal acts against innocent
individuals, diabolically devise plans to suggest a person is psychologically challenged, how do
you respond? How do you deIeat a conglomerate? Simple (smile, chuckle), you publicly expose
it!

I will now respond to your letter written on December 1, 2011. I will write your letter verbatim,
and respond in italics. Your letter, Mr. Hill and my responses are as Iollows:

I am writing you on behalI oI Greensboro Police Department Sergeant Darrin Davis and your
public comments about him. Among other things, you have posted YouTube videos containing
audios oI Sergeant Davis which are snippets oI conversations in an attempt to portray them in a
Ialse light. Further, you have sent correspondence to the ChieI oI Police and other City
employees stating among other things, that 'Sergeant Davis` competency as a Supervisor must
be questioned. Mr. Cherrys Response. The recordings (go to YouTube and put sgtdfdavis in
the search bar) for which you refer are Sergeant Davis words. What is false about what
Sergeant Davis stated and did? Mr. Hill, publicly prove that the recordings are falsely
portrayed. I am informed that the entire approximately two (2) hours of conversation entails a
multitude of other transgressions by Sergeant Davis. For instance, when Sergeant Davis refers
to Sergeant J. Heards investigation as 'bullsh*t,` Sergeant Davis is in violation of City Policy
and GPD Directives, to say the least, but it is not in the YouTube recording. Sergeant Davis
reference to Sergeant Heards investigation is on the full recording. Let me know if you want a
full copy (of the recording), so that you can put it on YouTube, and set the record straight. Mr.
Hill, my assertions regarding Sergeant Davis competency are supported by the following.
O Sergeant Davis curses while conversing with a subordinate and refers to a fellow
Sergeants investigation as 'bullsh*t.` This is on the full recording, apparently, it didnt
make the 'YouTube cut (smile).`
O Sergeant Davis states that he is ordered to investigate allegations against himself (and
his superiors) by the City Manager and his chain of command (which includes Chief Ken
Miller). Sergeant Davis actually investigated himself and his superiors, allowed himself
to be recorded, and committed the investigation to paper.
O Sergeant Davis threatened Former Officer Thomas with disciplinary action for filing a
complaint.
O Sergeant Davis stated, 'Dont file any other grievances or complaints unless they come
through me.` Sergeant Davis knew that some of the alleged complaints were against him.
In addition, you cannot direct an employee not to file complaints.
O Sergeant Davis responded to a disciplinary appeal that was clearly outside his realm of
authority.
O Sergeant Davis investigated Former Officer Thomas for going home sick, after he gave
her authori:ation. Then he lied and stated that he had not conducted an investigation.
O Sergeant Davis investigated his subordinate for calling in sick, because she had filed a
complaint on him the same day.
O Sergeant Davis informed Former Officer Thomas that he let her go home because if he
didnt she may have alleged that he was harassing her.
O Sergeant Davis informed his subordinate that he wouldve had an issue if the employee
told Sergeant Davis that she was sick at 4.00pm and dropped off a complaint at 4.10pm.
O Sergeant Davis stated he had an issue with Former Officer Thomas filing a complaint on
him.
O Sergeant Davis stated, 'As far as harassment on me, you need to discuss the matters at
hand with me before you go any further, according to 3.9.2. There is no way you can get
around that. And if you do, disciplinary action will follow. If you are gonna file some
kind of complaint on Sergeant Davis.` The statement itself is bad enough, but Sergeant
Davis doesnt reali:e that Grievance Procedure 3.9.2, and a complaint are two (2)
different directives and actions.
O Sergeant Davis referred to Officer Thomas complaints as 'crap,` and stated she
'stabbed him in the back` for filing a complaint against him.
O Sergeant Davis stated, 'Officer Thomas, when you wrote that stuff about our private
conversations, I was trying to relay some stuff to you in a way I probably should not
have. Now the Lieutenant knows.`
O Sergeant Davis was disappointed in his evaluation. Sergeant Davis spoke to his
subordinate instead of filing the proper appeal with his supervisor.
O Sergeant Davis stated to his female subordinate, 'Im gonna cut my recorder off and tell
you something in private.` What could Sergeant Davis possibly have been going to tell
his female subordinate that would have made it necessary to cut the recorder off?
O Sergeant Davis stated, 'I dont want to see anything happen to you. You cant continue
filing grievances and complaints, especially in the manner you are filing them in.`
O Sergeant Davis stated, 'This is not a democracy.`
O Former Officer Thomas requested a thorough investigation of her complaints. Sergeant
Davis replied, 'You probably are not gonna get it.`
O Sergeant Davis keeps his subordinate in his office and continues harassing her because
his name ended up on a blog. Sergeant Davis then asked if the subordinate really
believed that he was continuing to harass her.
O Former Officer Thomas informs Sergeant Davis that she does not want to discuss a
complaint with him that he is named in, and that it was intimidating to her. Sergeant
Davis stated that is where they differed and forced her to continue speaking with him. He
then informed her that when filing a complaint she would come to him, informerly and
then come back to him formerly.
O Sergeant Davis harassed the employee because her complaint was taken to the City
Managers Office.
O Sergeant Davis stated, 'We can stay in here all day,` regarding an administrative
investigation, because the employee would not give Sergeant Davis the answer he
wanted.
O Many citi:ens that have listened to the YouTube audio describe Sergeant Davis actions
as synonymous with incompetence.
O Some of Sergeant Davis own peers and superiors have referred to him as incompetent.
These same individuals may have also had lunch with him at Chillis on HighPoint Road,
but that is beside the point.
Mr. Hill this is from approximately twenty two (22) minutes of approximately two (2) hours of
recordings. Let me know if you want the remaining portions of the recordings.
Mr. Hill you state; In a separate e-mail, you portray Sergeant Davis Ialsely as 'harassing,
intimidating and threatening a subordinate employee and making the statement that Sergeant
Davis, is violent by stating his: 'propensity Ior violence is documented. You requested that
Sergeant Davis` employment with the Greensboro Police Department be terminated. As you
know, the statements as to Sergeant Davis are without merit. He is a Sergeant with the
Greensboro Police Department who is in Iine standing. He is an outstanding supervisor and has
served this community well. Why you continue to harass and make Ialse statements about
employees is simply nonsensical. Mr. Cherrys response. Mr. Hill, refer to the aforementioned
bulleted points regarding Sergeant Davis harassing, intimidating and threatening a subordinate
employee. Also listen to the YouTube audio, and all of the other audios of Sergeant Davis. My
assertion regarding Sergeant Davis propensity for violence is as follows.
According to Sergeant Davis accounts,
O Sergeant Davis had a prisoner in custody at the Guilford County Jail.
O The prisoner referred to Sergeant Davis as a nig*er (racist epithet).
O Sergeant Davis, a Greensboro Police Officer, in his uniform and on duty, responded, by
choking the arrestee.
O Sergeant Davis bragged about the incident to other GPD employees.
O Former Police Chief David Wray had Sergeant Davis investigated. I would assume the
investigation is well documented, especially since this incident is at least partially why
Sergeant Davis is suing the City of Greensboro for discrimination.
Mr. Hill, let me know how the crow tastes and if you need any condiments''
Also, Mr. Hill, although I dont condone Sergeant Davis actions, I understand the negativity
associated with using racist epithets. This is why Officer G.F. Pinsons racist speech (calling
Hispanic officers/citi:ens wetb*cks) cannot be tolerated, and why Captain James Hinson,
Assistant Chief Dwight Crotts and Police Chief Ken Millers 1ailure to terminate or even
discipline Officer Pinson is so appalling.
Mr. Hill you state; On his behalI, we would respectIully request that you cease and desist making
Ialse statements about Sergeant Davis. As you know, there have been other Ialse statements you
have made about him and this letter is only intended to summarize some oI them. Once again,
we would respectIully request this behavior stop. Mr. Cherrys response. Mr. Hill, I have made
no false statements about Sergeant Davis. If you believe that I have, then publicly prove it. So,
YOUR REQUEST IS DENIED. Furthermore, I may allow my daughter to respond to your next
correspondence. She enfoys pen pals (fovial laughter). Mr. Hill, stop defending wrong, it
tarnishes your credibility''
Sincerely,

Charles E. Cherry