Ohio State Parole Board Sued & Exposed

    Hello, various organization(s) and individual(s):

    My name is William T Dawson Jr, current inmate at Ohio Belmont Facility. I am sending you this information in need of support from your organization. Ohio State Parole board has been exposed for its bias corruption. A former state senator who recently left the Ohio Parole Board is now speaking out against it, painting it as a “secret society” whose members make decisions on inmates’ futures using inconsistent, biased, or racist reasoning, often after missing hearings or being distracted by food or other work.
    Shirley Smith said board members conduct five to 10 hearings in a day via videoconference, giving themselves no time for lunch and little time to prepare for an individual’s case. A parolee, who often has been waiting years for a hearing, sees a board that is often eating during a hearing not paying attention because they are reviewing documents from an upcoming case, said Smith, admitting she, too, was guilty of the practice while on the board.
    Shirley Smith said when an inmate comes before the Parole Board, often only a fraction of board members are there to hear their argument for parole – sometimes because they’re attending self-defense training classes required for all parole board members. However, absent board members are still allowed to vote on whether to grant parole to inmates whose hearings they did not attend – “ghost votes,” as Smith dubbed them. “You can’t make an assessment of a person if you’re not there,” Smith said. “So how are you basing your decision on whether he’s eligible or whether he’s not?”
    Shirley Smith said the board frequently “emasculated” black men who came before them and were “harsher and stricter with people of color.” During questioning, Smith said, “I think they treat them like they’re dogs sometimes.

    Background- My Case

    In 1987, I had an altercation with a policeman, in Youngstown, Ohio and I ended-up shooting and, thereby, killing him, in "self-defense". I have been im-prisoned, ever-since. I was convicted, of having 'walked up to his car's driver's-door and inserted my ".22- caliber, revolver, handgun" into the car's cabin, through the open-window, on the driver's-door, and shot him once, in the upper left chest and once, in the lower left abdomen, and he blead to death, from the chest wound'.

    The evidence, showing I shot him, in self-defense, was "hidden", by the police. When I shot him, he was outside of the car and standing behind me, holding me in a "headlock", "choking me". I have been fighting, to get my "freedom", ever-since.
    Most Recent – Ohio State Parole Board Sued

    On October 18, 2021, I filed a proceeding into the Ohio Supreme Court, named "Accusation by Affidavit, to cause Arrest or Prosecution", (AAAP) against Trayce Thalheimer (Thalheimer), Ron Nelson, Kathleen Kovach and Scott Widmur, whom were the parole board agent(s), that decided my case (The Panel); against Ohio Attorney General (OAG), Assistant(s), George Horv'ath (Horv'ath) and Lindsey M. Grant (Grant) and ; against Ohio Court of Claims Judge, Patrick E. Sheeran (Sheeran), which claim's 'that, The Panel "colluded, with one another" or "conspired, with one another, to deprive me of a parole" and they done so, by making it seem, as if, 'l admitted to shooting Durkin, as he sat in his police car's driver-seat' by making the assertion 'that, I continue to feel justified, in committing my offense', on June 4, 2019, at the Belmont Correctional Institution, in St. Clairsville, Ohio.

    I was convicted, of having murdered Durkin, by shooting him, as he sat in the car's driver-seat. Therefore, that's the "offense".

    At the parole hearing, I told The Panel, I shot Durkin in self-defense and Thalheimer told me ‘That, they would not accept my, self-defense, defense, into evidence'. Thereafter, she asked me 'if I felt justified, in shooting Durkin' and I said ' "Yes", if I hadn’t, he would have choked me to death'.
    Thalheimer looked at me, as if I had said the "most, stupidest thing, ever". Basically, she felt 'that, once she said, she wasn’t accepting my self-defense, defense, into evidence, I was supposed to go on and admit to shooting him, as he sat in the car'. She asked the question, maybe, two-more time(s) and went to another issue. Once she made the statement, about not accepting my self-defense, defense, into evidence, she made it understood 'that, nothing, in reference to what I said happened, would be used. Therefore, when The Panel said, 'I continue to feel justified in committing my offence', it was saying ' I continue to feel justified in shooting Durkin, as he sat in the car's driver-seat'.

    That action constitutes "perjury", under Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.11(A) stating, in, pertinent, part, the following:

    "No person, in any official proceeding, shall knowingly make a false
    statement under oath or affirmation..."

    The parole board is an "official proceeding" and The Panel was under "oath", when it asserted 'that, I continue to feel justified in committing my offence', knowing, it was not true. I took this "issue", to the court system and, in an effort to "protect The Panel and, at that, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority " (9OAPA), the court system began "colluding", to prevent me from winning the case and that is why I filed the charge(s), against Horv'ath, Grant and Sheeran.
    After the OAPA let me know the reason for "depriving me of the parole", (Depriving mean's, to "take, forcibly"; despoil, meaning, to "rob".) and attempting to make it seem, as if, it was a, "valid, denial" (Denial mean's a refusal to accept, based on the, pertinent, fact(s); not "hatred" and "ill-will")

    I filed a "Right, of Mandamus, Action" into the 10th District Court of Appeals, Franklin County, on January 21, 2020, under case number 20AP-46, against Thalheimer, OAPA and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC). The mandamus action claimed 'that, The Panel's action(s) were "arbitrary" and "capricious", ' which is the term used, to signify "bad faith" and "maliciousness in "administrative proceeding's"; it claimed that 3-reason(s) existed, for The Panel's hatred, of me, and they were the following:

    1. The Panel had a "policy, not to parole prisoner(s) that have harmed policemen", even when the "record" say's the prisoner is ready to be paroled, as attested to, by a, "former, parole board member, named Shirley Smith," in late 2018. Smith, pretty-much, explained 'that, a lot of the hate comes from the fact that, the parole board member(s) came from that field or, close there to.

    2. The Panel was "mad, at me", because I called them "corrupt", in a letter I wrote to the OAPA in, early, 2018.

    3. The Panel was mad at me, because I basically, "chastised Thalheimer" and said or inferred 'that, she had no business hearing my case, because she did not know enough about it, to be judging whether I should be paroled. 'Horv'ath represented them, in the mandamus action, and he filed a "Motion, to Dismiss, alleging 'that, I claimed The Panel's action(s) were "inappropriate" and "mistake" and 'that, I argued that I, erroneously, believed that I was justified, in shooting Durkin'.
    Those are, just, some of the "lie(s)" that he told, in the motion. A claim of inappropriate and mistake does not allow the court, to hear your case. Basically, Horv'ath was attempting to "rewrite the mandamus’s claim". Looking at the situation, I determined 'that, the judge, on the case, or someone, in the court of appeals, was working with Horv'ath, to make sure the case got dismissed, because 'no sane attorney that is not in a "conspiracy, with the court," would tell all the lie(s), that he told, or, even, one-lie'.
    That, along with some other act(s), let me know 'that, I would not get a, "fair, determination" and I needed to protect the case' and that's when I, "voluntarily, dismissed the case" and refiled it in the court of claims, against OAPA, due to The Panel's action(s), in depriving me of the parole, and against OAG, due to Horv'ath's lie(s), in the Motion, to Dismiss, and Grant represented them.
    The "Tort, Action" against OAPA sought, "compensatory, damages, for depriving me of the parole with the malicious and bad faith act, of making it appear, I admitted to shooting Durkin, as Durkin sat in the car and for some, other, malicious and bad faith act(s), in violation of R. C 2967.03.
    Against OAG, I sought, compensatory, damage(s) for Horv'ath's malicious and bad faith lie(s), in violation of R. C 109.362.
    Grant filed a "Motion, to Dismiss," alleging 'that, against OAPA, the complaint should be dismissed, because the court did not have jurisdiction, due to the fact 'that, I sought, compensatory, damages, for my imprisonment and because OAPA and The Panel had, "discretionary, immunity", under R. C 2743.02(A)(1).

    Grant was “lying” on, both, account(s). Remember, I sought compensatory damages, from the injury, damage and loss caused by The Panel making it look like I admitted to shooting Durkin, as he sat in the car, which presented a ground for me to be deprived of the parole and, thereby, subjected me to staying imprisoned and missing-out, on a lot of things(s) going-on, in life.

    That is a "valid, ground for compensatory damages", in the court of claims.
    Compensatory damages, for my imprisonment, is not a, valid, ground for relief. As to the immunity defense, it applies, only, to "personnel that created a policy"; not to those 'that, enforced the policy'. Shirley Smith made it understood 'that, the policy had been in effect, long before I went to the parole board'. Therefore, OAPA cannot claim that immunity. Just as well, because The Panel made it look, as if, I admitted to shooting, Durkin, as Durkin sat in the car, they gave me, "clear-cut, evidence of malicious" and "bad faith action(s)". Bad faith mean's, acts of "fraud", lie(s) against OAG. Grant alleged 'that, R. C 109.363 did not apply to Horv'ath, through me, because I am not an "agent" or "employee, of the state" ' and I agreed with that.

    I filed a "Motion, in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss", arguing 'that, I would be "amending my claim, against OAG, to delete the reliance on R. C 109.362' and, against OAPA, making it understood 'that, discretionary immunity is inapplicable'.

    I wanted to strengthen my claim, against OAPA, and I done so, by amending the complaint and making it's, "sole, basis of maliciousness" and "bad faith, as stemming from the policy". I did not amend the claim, against OAG, because I had not realized, that I needed to change the statue, from R. C 109.362 to R. C 2323.51, yet. Once the "Amended, Tort, Action" was filed Grant filed an "Amended, Motion to Dismiss", based on the same ground(s), in the, original, Motion to Dismiss.
    on April1, 2021, I filed a "Motion, to Strike, as Sham and False, against the Amended, Motion to Dismiss", pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule (Civil. R) 11, asking to strike the immunity defense and to "sanction Grant", for presenting a defense he knew was baseless. I asked for, "attorney, fee(s)", in the amount of $5,000.00.

    Grant, then, filed a "Memorandum Contra. in Opposition to my Motion, to Strike, as Sham and False" asserting 'that, my Motion, to Strike, as Sham and False, was filed pursuant to Civil. R 12(F) and, under Civ. R 12(F), the motion had to be filed, within "28-day(s), of the filing, of the "pleading, "that was seeking to be struck", and 'since the Motion, to Strike, as Sham and False was filed, some, "52-day(s) after the Amended, Motion, to Dismiss, was filed", it had to be denied, because it was "untimely".
    Again, Grant was telling lie(s). My Motion, to Strike, as Sham and False, was filed pursuant to Civil. R 11 and, under Civil. R 11, it could be filed at any time, for lying, and saying my Motion, to Strike, as Sham and False, was filed pursuant to Civ. R 12(f), I filed a "Motion, to place Grant in Contempt, of Court", and asked the court to order him to pay me $50,000.00, for the "egregious, act".

    At that point, of the case, the court had two-motion(s), before-it, "warning-it, it had a "court officer" doing thing(s), that could, very-well, cause it to make the wrong ruling. Basically, Sheeran was "obligated", to begin proceeding's, on those two-motion(s) Act(s) constituting contempt of the court are "serious" and, for the most-part, take precedent over everything. That Motion, to Strike, as Sham and False, was, basically, a contempt motion, because it was asserting an attempt to present a "fraud, upon the court". Instead of Sheeran beginning the strike and contempt proceeding(s), he dismissed my, Tort, Action, on May 17, 2021, against OAPA on ground 'that, basically, he did not see anything in the complaint that indicated The Panel's decision, not to provide me with a parole, was malicious and in bad faith'. Page(s) 6- 10, of the, Amended, Complaint sets forth the malicious and bad faith conduct, at paragraph(s) 9- 16.

    Sheeran had, "no position", "right" or "authority to dismiss the case, "first, before hearing the strike and contempt, motion(s)" and "second, based on ground's 'that, there were no evidence in the complaint showing maliciousness and bad faith". The strike and contempt motion(s) weren’t heard because, Sheeran was "protecting Grant, OAPA, The Panel, OAG and Horv'ath. Now, I'm waiting for the Ohio Supreme Court Judge(s) to decide, if they will issue, "arrest, warrant(s)" for The Panel, Horv'ath, Grant and Sheeran. All of them committed perjury, at the least.
    This is "evidence", of the corruption.
    Sign Petition
    Sign Petition
    You have JavaScript disabled. Without it, our site might not function properly.

    Privacy Policy

    By signing, you accept Care2's Terms of Service.
    You can unsub at any time here.

    Having problems signing this? Let us know.