Answering the Call for Proof
I have worked hand-in-hand with my husband for the last 7 years serving not only the constituents of District 6, but so many more across the entire city.
This involvement includes the efforts to support our police officers. Over the last year, I have had a front row seat to the events that came to a head over the last 2 weeks publicly.
Normally I would do what I always do- stay quiet publicly while carrying the weight of frustration for the lack of truth and transparency. With the unprecedented actions taken by the Council and City leadership recently and the call by several leaders to provide evidence of unethical, immoral, and potentially even illegal activities that are occurring in the City of Charlotte…I seem to be the only person that can actually provide answers to that call - so I am no longer willing to be silent.
Under any other circumstance one would provide these facts to the City Attorney as he requested for investigation, but since he is a party to so many of them, WE the people of Charlotte cannot rely on him to investigate himself - so I am releasing these details to the citizens of Charlotte, who I have faith will ensure the proper investigations and follow ups occur so we can arrive at the truth and take appropriate action for those involved. Since I fear we will not be able to rely upon the standard complaints process of the city to validate these facts, I am hopeful the investigative journalists in our city can challenge or validate these facts until we arrive at a full and transparent understanding of this situation.
After consulting with several experts, this statement relays all the facts that simply need to be verified to confirm, hold those accountable, and close out this sad chapter in our city.
It has been an honor to serve alongside my husband to serve the Queen City. I know in releasing this information, I put my appointment to the District seat at risk, but this is too important and is a risk I’m more than willing to take!
Evidence of unethical, immoral, and illegal activities in the City of Charlotte:
Withholding of Critical Information: From January 10 through February 19, Vi Lyles, Marcus Jones and Anthony Fox were intimately aware of the submission, review and ultimate ruling of dismissal (due to lack of merit) of an ethics complaint submitted by NAACP President Corrine Mack accusing Councilman Bokhari of inappropriately attacking Chief Jennings. These 3 were also aware of the FOIA request made by Mack in the previous 3 months with specific keyword parameters that would ultimately scope in the text messages between Chief Jennings and Bokhari. 3 months later, nearly the identical claim was brought to City Council in closed session on April 28th, with a threat of litigation and request for settlement of over $300k (representing a year of salary plus payout of vacation time). The City Attorney reversed course and advised Council to approve the settlement — but did not disclose (nor did Lyles, or Jones) that he had already reviewed and dismissed the same claims through the ethics process less than 3 months before. On Friday of that week, when the WSOC story dropped (not only making public the existence of this prior investigation, but also providing evidence that the FOIA request and Ethics Complaint filed by Mack was directed and in many parts even written by the 2 top aides to Chief Jennings), nearly all of the other council members learned of this information that was withheld from them for the first time.
Recommending Settlement of Taxpayer Dollars Lacking a Legal Claim: Anthony Fox, despite not actually having a lawsuit submitted to the court, recommended to council a settlement was warranted to avoid 1) public embarrassment, and 2) a potentially costly legal fight that they could ultimately lose. This was a premeditated falsehood that he presented to his clients that he is bound to serve. As any attorney would quickly know - there has to be some valid form of a legal claim. The only 2 legal claims that could be argued as relevant to this situation are defamation and hostile work environment, and it is clear to anyone operating with a legal license and a cursory review of the details of the case, that they have no merit:
Defamation: Legal standards for defamation require public, false statements of fact communicated to a third party. Private messages, like the text messages between Jennings and Bokhari, do not meet this standard. Taking those out of the scope, the website and public comments Bokhari made to the media were either fact, or his opinion which he believed to be factual (of which to date no specific items have been challenged as false, and certainly not knowingly false by Bokhari at the time). Based upon these indisputable facts, there is no basis for a Defamation claim by Jennings against the City, and therefore no justification for recommending or approving a settlement.
Hostile Work Environment: Such claims require evidence of discrimination based on protected characteristics (e.g., race, gender). Policy disagreements and personal criticisms, even if intense, do not meet this threshold. If Councilman Bokhari had no easily identifiable underlying driver for his actions other than because of Chief Jennings’ race, there could be grounds for a case. But since it is publicly clear the vests were the underlying reason, as well as evidence in the text messages of friendship and positive sentiments before and after the hostility, it is clear there is no credible legal claim of hostile work environment that would warrant the consideration of a settlement.
Violating Rules of Procedure to Subvert the Council’s Will: Anthony Fox, Vi Lyles and Marcus Jones (along with the rest of the council members), left the first closed session on April 28th under the impression that the vote failed to pass, and another vote would need to be scheduled the following Monday to enact their plan. When the council members reconvened for the 2nd closed session on May 5th, they walked into a strategically designed trap based upon a technicality. They realized they had the ability to use a nuanced rule of a council member leaving the meeting without being formally excused (where their votes are in the affirmative for the rest of the meeting) to relay that the vote actually passed the week before. They spent the remaining time threatening council members on what the consequences would be of leaking this information. It can be noted to those paying attention the depth of their technical planning by looking at the sections stated in the Attorney’s motion to go into closed session: On April 28 it was both attorney client privilege and personnel matter, but on May 5 it was only attorney client privilege (there was no intention to revisit the content of the settlement, and likely it was their actual plan… if the conversation was forced… to cite they were out of compliance with the scope of the closed session. On May 5th, one council member who had voted in support of the settlement the prior week, after learning from the media everything they hadn’t been told, stated they wanted to change their vote. They were told that was not going to be allowed aggressively. The actual rule is, any member who wants to change their vote from support to opposition can call for a revote in the same meeting. This would have shut down their technicality-based plan to steamroll to a taxpayer payout. While this situation is a bit unprecedented, this request should have been acted upon - because even though the vote was from the previous week, the council was not made aware they were ruling it passed based upon the technicality until that May 5th meeting.
Advising Knowingly False Legal Advise with the Intent of Intimidating a Whistleblower: Anthony Fox, during the May 5th closed session and then subsequently to the media that week, told council members leaking closed session information was a criminal offense, he would be launching an investigation, and there would be consequences. In his own words: “{The city} is obligated to comply with the personnel privacy statute that maintains the confidentiality of the information in the personnel file,” Interim City Attorney Anthony Fox said. As any attorney would know, this is blatantly false, and was knowingly communicated falsely to intimidate those wanting to whistleblow everything cited above. There is only one nuanced situation where leaking closed session information is potentially a criminal offense - when a person shares a personnel file publicly. This does not apply to talking about a personnel file either - it’s the physical sharing of the file. Not only was there no personnel file involved in these closed sessions, making his claim technically impossible, there was actually no personnel content included as any part of these closed sessions. There was Bokhari’s texts, and there was Jennings threats of suit and requests for settlement. At no point was Jennings performance history or any other personnel categorized information discussed. (For the legal nerds, they did not even need to cite personnel matter in the first closed session in hindsight, technically). Boiling down all the threats to silence the whistleblowers in this situation… the absolute worst outcome that can occur is if the council votes to censure, which is a far cry from criminal offense. There is no scenario any City Attorney would not know this. This is grounds for an ethics complaint to be sent to the NC Bar Association for review, and potential disbarment.
Ignoring Clear Workplace Retaliation Instances: In addition to Chief Jenning’s top aides working behind the scenes to attack Bokhari via Mack, the same theme was playing out for Officer Daniel Redford and the FOP. CMPD PIO (Sandy) launched a lawsuit claiming personal reputational damage from Redford and the FOP based on their comments (exactly the same case Jennings threatened to sue the City over Bokhari’s actions, which a judge there out with prejudice - yet another example of how Jennings case had no legal basis), Redford was brought to the civil review board on allegations he used his role in the FOP to comment negatively about the chief during the vest battle, which he received a suspension for. In addition to the fact that he was merely exercising his first amendment right as a private citizen to voice his opinion, there is a long standing policy in the FOP where a board of multiple people approves posts so that no one can be individually singled out - neither of which mattered. When he returned to work, he was demoted from the post he had earned over a career keeping CATS safe, down to patrol. This is a clear cut case of retaliation for doing something within his constitutional rights that the Chief just didn’t like, and presents a significant opportunity to not just deny the settlement, but counter sue Jennings.
Making False Public Statements while not Properly Investigating Employee Code of Conduct Violations: When the bombshell proof dropped from WSOC that Jenning’s 2 top aides used their personal emails to direct Mack to make a FOIA request and ethics complaint against Bokhari, within an hour the City of Charlotte released a statement saying they had completed an HR investigation and found there was no violation by those 2 employees, they were acting in their capacity as private citizens voicing their opinions (see Redford conflicting position above), and no action would be taken. This is false. If they had directed Mack to stage a protest against Bokhari, while still shaky, maybe that could be defended. They directed Mack to utilize 2 City assets - the FOIA request process and the ethics complaint process. Additionally, the only reason it was discovered they did this was an accidental forward of that single email from Mack to WSOC. It is reasonable to believe that if they used their personal emails in this one instance, there is likely additional evidence of violations in their personal emails, which certainly would have been deleted by them by now, but can be recovered from the carrier with the proper authority. It is difficult to believe Marcus Jones, Vi Lyles, Anthony Fox, and the HR department completed a comprehensive investigation covering all these aspects plus interviews and potentially questioning under oath… in under an hour… before they publicly cleared them of any wrongdoing.
Breaking Confidentiality Rules of Closed Session, with Knowingly False Statements: Vi Lyles made the following statement to the media during her press conference on May 7th: “The chief was publicly attacked by a former council member who stated his intent was to damage his reputation and end his career. I owe the chief an apology for not publicly supporting him then,” said Mayor Vi Lyles. Not only is this a knowingly false statement (Bokhari did not publicly attack Jennings stating it was his intent to damage his reputation and end his career, as established above, rather privately used that messaging as a final tactic to get the Chief to change his mind and compromise in some way… and this information was only made public by the strategic efforts of 2 top aides of Jennings), Lyles is actually breaking the confidentiality of closed session, publicly talking about the content that was discussed in that room, and relaying the sentiment that the chief was indeed inappropriately attacked (which is the basis of having an actual legal basis for a settlement or not, and the core of what they were discussing in that closed session). Unfortunately, for reasons outlined above, Lyles is only exposed to censure for these actions.
In summary, the City of Charlotte had no legal exposure to a claim by Chief Jennings, yet Vi Lyles, Marcus Jones and Anthony Fox relied on an improperly used procedural technicality and these additional tactics (disregard for the rule of law and dissenting opinions) to approve taxpayer dollars for their friend, and in doing so performed the unethical, immoral and potentially illegal actions they are now exposed to.
Additional Facts Confirming Councilman Bokhari Operated in an Acceptable Manner, and is Not Exposed to Personal Legal Liability:
Legislative Immunity: Councilman Bokhari's advocacy for outer carrier vests for officers was a matter of public concern, especially following a tragic incident where several officers were shot. His communications, including text messages to Chief Jennings, can be viewed as part of his legislative duties, which are protected under legislative immunity.
Truthfulness of Statements: There is no public evidence indicating that Bokhari made any false statements about Chief Jennings. His criticisms focused on policy disagreements, particularly regarding the implementation of protective vests, and did not involve false factual claims.
Use of Official Authority: Bokhari's actions did not involve misuse of his official capacity. He did not leverage his position to enact formal disciplinary measures against Chief Jennings but rather expressed his personal opinions and policy preferences to the public, encouraging their engagement if they agreed.
Private Communications and Defamation: The text messages in question were private communications between Bokhari and Jennings. Defamation claims require that false statements be made publicly to third parties. Since these messages were private and not disseminated publicly by Bokhari (in fact, they were released publicly at the direction of Chief Jennings, through his top aides, to Corrine Mack), they do not meet the standard criteria for defamation.
These blatant violations are echoing inside the walls of City Hall…we deserve better!
Cedar's Take:
I have little patience for long winded women. I don't know Krista Bokhari and have zero desire to know her. Her husband is often described as hubris piece of crap and so I'd expect her to be the same.
While I have to admit I laughed at his use of Liam Neeson's "Particular Set of Skills" from the movie Taken, to "threaten" Chief Jennings. The only thing that would made this shit show funnier - would be had the chief replied with a simple "Good Luck".
However long winded, to a point were most of Charlotte won't read but 10% of her rambling rant, she's not wrong.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
