In 2008; after serving 20 full years

Peters, John E., Jr.

Original

Transcript

_ JOHN PETERS JR. A209244 Madison Correctional Institution 1851 State Route 56 P.O. Box 740 London, Ohio 43140 in 2008; after serving 20 full years of imprisonment, lwas considered for Parole Release. This review process began as early as March of 2008. in an E-mail correspondence from my ex wife, dated'March 14, 2008; Ms. Nan Peters-Griffin related that Victim Services contacted her, her family, and stated that ”...l have done my time...”. (Please see for review, enclosed E-Mail) During this same time frame, Grafton’s Mental Health Services simultaneously began their Clinical Risk Assessment of me, which is evident by the March 14, 2008, dated signature on the enclosed ”Disclosure Statement” signed by Michael J. Russo, PHD. In an‘ unrelated correspondence from Prison’s Director, Gary"C. Mohr, to Ms. Karen G. Thimmes, dated June 6, 2011; Director Mohr carefully represents mandated factors used in the Parole ilielease decision-making» process. Director Mohr gives a very detailed summary of; ”...Much' time is spent reviewing the offender's ENTIRE record prior to...” ".. This preparation & process ensures that each inmate is provided meaningful parole consideration. On December 29, 2008; after considering all the mandated & Ohio Revised Code factors, I was Paroled on the merits of the case. The Central.Office Parole Board Review determined that; ”...lnmate Peters is suitable to be released onto Parole Supervision at this time”. This review process was at least 10 months long and the APA exhaustedly considered every factor & aspect of this decision. I was then assigned a Parole Officer, in which she approved of my A Plan Placement Address. Her Supervisor then approved & signed off on the Placement Address, as well. I then secured employment with Ultimate Auto Care, and was ready to resume responsibilities after serving 20 full years of imprisonment. l enlisted in the support of the Cleveland Re Entry Coalition, and Ms. Margarette Dua offered FULL support from her Agency, upon my release. My family & friends were supportive in any means i would be in need of. l secured NA/AA Sponsorship, as to ensure my release would stay prosperous & triumphant. l was very focused for this second chance. However, before l was scheduled to be released, l receiveda STOP RELEASE Notice. A.Full Parole Board Open Hearing was set for March 25, 2009. As it turned out, the Cuyahoga County Assistant Prosecutor filed a Petition for an Open Full Parole Board Hearing. There was no mass crowd of angry anti—release protesters in attendance for this Hearying. (This same Prosecuting Attorney had just fought vigorously against me in Motions for New Trial, threeyears earlier). After this Prosecuting Attorney submitted fraudulent, hearsay ”Charles Manson” type acts, rewriting the stated material facts of this wrongful conviction to suit his own predilection, the Parole Board rescinded my Parole Release. There was nolproof offered _& some of the "New Information” is not even truthful. I was then assessed with TEN (10) more years ‘of imprisonment. Nothing had changed, mystats are all still in place, and the Ohio Parole Board is acting out vindictively & vengefully for my continued effo"rts to prove my factual innocence. In the January‘27, 2009; STOP RELEASE notice, Parole Board Chair person Cynthia Mausser cites "New Information” has been received, that was not previously known or considered. In a letter of response as to why I was given such a TEN (10) year excessive prison continuance, Senator Bill Seitz narrated Chair Person Mausser’s reasoning for this irrational rescission. This narrative describes their significant ”new” information. As it turns out, none of this is “new”, some of it is not even true,and the fact that ”Parole” was partially due to a single recantation that was an act of intimidation & coercion, has no merit and it derives straight from a corrupt Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who continues to conceal suppress exculpatory evidence. Parole Board Chair Person Mausser has rewrote the facts of my conviction, retried the criminal case, using only ex—parte’ perjured & misleading fraudulent lies against me. Chair Person Mausser’s analysis does not take into consideration the other 18 known, verifiable recantations. (Moreover, this is the Agency to be relied upon to review & recommend the instant application). During the ten (10) month long parole release decision—making process, I personally submitted all 19 recantations. In fact, these statements of retractions were a central focus point during my review process. Much time & effort was spent about them. They were submitted directly to the Parole Board, personally, submitted at both Parole Board Hearings, and submitted at the Offender Conference Hearing prior to my Parole Hearing(s). M_sI{_athleen Kovach very specifically asked my sister; Furi Peters-Smosny; and my friend, Mrs. Marilyn Wilson, "...How ‘I’ would answer the question; Am I guilty [?]...”. This matter was a large percentage of my Parole Releaseflearing Process. In relying on the deceptive, dishonest misrepresentations submitted as 4”New Information”, knowledge that information is false can be inferred from the circumstances. Examining the ”compelling” information presented confirms that Chair Person Mausser is straight outlying. The information posted on the Internet/publicized on the internet, is a Web site from the Innocent Inmates Association of Ohio, Inc. The details listed on this site are all of a Public Record in nature. None of these details has ever proven to be false, and they have never been refuted or even challenged. None of the information posted is obsceneiin nature, and no one is being forced to Logon to view or read the information. Using this Web site as an excuse to extend me another decade in prison is pure vengeance on thepart of the Parole Board. I still have Due Process Rights of Freedom of Speech. Freedom of the Press, and protected Rights to file Motions for New Trial—-when suppressed exculpatory evidence is uncovered. Reviewing some of the same facts used by the Parole Board, during their decision making process, there are 19 known and verifiable statements of recantations. This summary ‘is supportive of my factual innocence. It supports the grounds in a very detailed account that no one coerced this child with the exception of interested officials in seeing that I remain imprisoned". ‘ These 19 known & verified statements of recantations must be considered. It would be impossible to explain away each & every occasion where this child stated that I never sexually abused her. The Law Firm of IAN N. FRIEDMAN & ASSOCIATES also supports my actual innocence in this matter. [Please see for review, their September 17, 2008; letter of response]. Providing further support of Cuyahoga County's political agenda & willful misconduct, please see the enclosed ' Affidavit from Private Investigator; Keith King. After 17‘years had passed, this Prosecutor's Office still will not release all the reports. If I were in fact so guilty, why wouldn’t the Prosecutor's Office reveal their Case against me in full? (Please review the Web site listed on enclosed Flyer). I As even the State Public Defender writes; in a letter from April 1, 2009; ”I would make an excellent candidate for Parole”. I was interviewed extensively & exhaustedly for parole release. After this process was concluded, it was determined that I am suitable to be released. Nothing has changed. All of the factors used are still in place. I maintain a Minimum status of level 1b. I have documented ”...extensive programming...”, and documented "...good adjustment to the 1/ state penal system... There remain no factor(s) to keep me imprisoned for another ten (10) years. I have served time in Ohio's Prison System and earned a solid reputation, of rehabilitation. I am an excellent candidate for release. Respectfully submitted, I wIJl;,~slt

Author: Peters, John E., Jr.

Author Location: Ohio

Date: December 16, 2016

Genre: Essay

Extent: 3 pages

If this is your essay and you would like it removed from or changed on this site, refer to our Takedown and Changes policy.

Takedown and Changes Policy
Browse More Essays