YO! GREENSBORO

Sometimes, when you’re too close to a picture, all you see are scattered, disjointed pixels. But step back… and what once looked like colorful chaos reveals a clear, deliberate image.

Up until now, we’ve seen fragments of Greensboro City Attorney Chuck Watts.

From vehemently denying the very existence of a contract he signed, to reversing not one, but two previous city attorneys’ opinions to favor a former council member, to now , being designated by a national financial exchange as ineligible to provide legal opinions due to failure to meet regulatory compliance standards.

 

THE PIXELS OF CHUCK WATTS

CLOAK-AND-DAGGER GUN‑SHOW BUYBACK CONTRACT

Late one night, Chuck Watts received a couriered document at his Durham home. The purpose? To quietly buy out a multi-year lease held by a private promoter to hold gun shows at the Greensboro Coliseum, a city-owned facility.

In an email exchange obfuscating a public record request, City Attorney Chuck Watts stated:

• January 11, 2022, 10:02 AM: Watts emailed, “we…do not appear to have any documents…full stop!”
• Same day, 11:08 AM: “There is no other way for you to ask the question that would unearth such documents in my office …as I do not believe that they exist in our office. ” I am saying that now for a third or fourth time.  
• Only after a public record lawsuit was filed by me (Eric Robert), did the city of Greensboro produce the document, showing that Watts’ signature appeared on the very document whose existence he had repeatedly denied.

Later, in an audio recording obtained by Yo! Greensboro, Watts admitted:”

“Matt Brown had one of his people drive to my house in Durham to have me sign…I signed it and gave it back. It never once… came into my office.”

While that explanation may be legally “clever”, it certainly doesn’t inspire confidence.

ETHICS FLIP-FLOP FOR ZACK MATHENY

Two previous city attorneys found that Councilmember Zack Matheny had a clear conflict of interest due to his potential dual role with Downtown Greensboro Inc. Matheny actually had to resign from city council in order to accept the position of president and CEO of the tax payer funded non-profit DGI.

Watts reversed both legal opinions, allowing Matheny to return to Council and vote on matters tied directly to DGI.

THE OTC “PROHIBITED SERVICE PROVIDER” DESIGNATION

On December 9, 2022, the OTC Exchange, which governs the over-the-counter trading exchange, placed Greensboro city attorney Chuck Watts on its public “Prohibited Service Providers” list.

In other words: Watts’ work for a private, publicly traded corporation, was so problematic it triggered regulatory action.

This, despite his exclusive employment contract with the City of Greensboro, which states:

He “shall remain in the exclusive employment” of the city, “devote all…energy to performing duties,” and “supervise outside legal services, if any.”

Yet Watts wrote letters on Watts Law, PLLC letterhead identifying himself as legal counsel to Cyberlux Corporation, a Nevada-based firm with a Durham address. Two such letters were submitted to OTC regulators—in August 2021 and again in November 2022. In both letters, Greensboro City Attorney Chuck Watts wrote: ”Dear Sir or Madam: I have acted as counsel to Cyberlux Corporation…”

On Dec 2022, in response to a sudden OTC “CE” designation and associated regulatory fallout, Cyberlux CEO Mark Schmidt, took to social media and posted a statement which included the following: 

”We are gathering all information to understand what has transpired…we will continue to fully comply with OTCM including having a new attorney opinion letter issued”.

While the company did not name Watts directly, the timeline raises questions about whether his legal opinion contributed to the designation.

The “CE” designation is short for Caveat Emptor, which in Latin means Buyer Beware .

BUT WHY?

Why was the city attorney for Greensboro, by contract, a full-time public servant, doing private compliance work for a publicly traded corporation based in another city and incorporated in a different state?

And while the full scope of the sanctions remains unclear, it raises serious questions about whether Chuck Watts is legally permitted to serve in any leadership role tied to public markets.

If Watts legal work isn’t considered fit for the private sector’s regulatory standards, it’s fair to ask whether it meets the ethical and professional standards to serve the public itself.

Ok , now, Step back… what do you see?

• A legal officer signs off-the-books contract to avoid scrutiny, and denies its existence.
• Rewrites ethics rules to suit insiders.
• Gets flagged by a national financial regulator.
• Violates city residency requirements in his employment contract
• Engages in outside legal work despite being under an exclusive employment agreement with the city.

The picture is now sharp, clear, and undeniable…the real question isn’t whether we see it, but whether we’ll keep pretending not to.