Mansfield Parole Officer (John Mayer) appeals firing.

Here’s an old story with the comments the MNJ blocked…

FIRED APA SUPERVISOR, NOW RETIRED DEPUTY?

FIRED APA SUPERVISOR, JOHN MAYER now working in the Richland County building as security?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mansfield parole supervisor appeals firing + posts deleted!

BY MARK CAUDILL • News Journal • April 7, 2009

MANSFIELD — John Mayer’s attorney maintains his client was terminated from the Ohio Adult Parole Authority for doing his job.

Mayer, 46, has appealed his termination to the Ohio Board of Personnel Review. Attorney John Spon said he expected a hearing date to be set within 60 days.

Spon said the hearing would be like a mini-trial.

“This will be the first opportunity for John Mayer to present evidence on his own behalf,” he said.

Mayer, an APA supervisor, was removed from his job Thursday for his actions at a Nov. 20 arrest of a probationer who reportedly was romantically involved with Mayer’s ex-wife. Mayer was placed on paid administrative leave on Nov. 25.

Mayer went through a pre-disciplinary hearing before the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction on March 3. A hearing officer ruled Mayer failed to follow a direct order from his supervisor to stay away from the probationer. Mayer was off-duty the night of the arrest and had been drinking. He also was not the officer who supervised the probationer.

Spon said Mayer was concerned about his ex-wife’s 8-year-old daughter because the probationer is a sex offender. According to Spon, the man served two years in prison for two counts of sexual battery.

The attorney said state officials used the incident as an excuse to get rid of Mayer.

“Our position is that John was not terminated for the petty charges against him but because he has challenged the Adult Parole Authority’s policy of less rather than more supervision in the field,” Spon said. “In a nutshell, the APA wants to impose their lower standard of supervision of offenders rather than our local authorities’ mandate for higher supervision in the field.”

Andrea Carson, an ODRC spokeswoman, disputes Spon’s claims.

“All of our parole officers are out in the field,” she said. “We actually call them field officers.

“Unit supervisors (like Mayer), their job is to be in the office.”

Spon said the probationer was not allowed to have unsupervised contact with children or be romantically involved with a woman who had children. The attorney said probation violation charges were brought against the man, who was then placed under stricter supervision.

Spon said Mayer could have recommended the probationer be sent back to prison but did not.

“John Mayer exemplified the highest degree of professionalism and lack of personal enmity,” the attorney said.

mcaudill@nncogannett.com

orvil wrote:

the highest degree of professionalism
four beers in a one hour period,,,driving DUI .if I were a betting man,,I would say the four beer deal and driving will be swept under the rug,,,along with the officer that stopped John and knew he smelled of alcohol and didn’t charge him.
4/7/2009 7:43:44 PM

keepinitreal34 wrote:

He should be treated like everyone else who brakes the law and not shown any slak from city officals.But we know this is mansfield alot of family ties uptown….
4/7/2009 7:50:57 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

I couldn’t agree more! Attention spinners, just like the other forum – I will be watching this one to!
Romantically involved?, a NEW twist, they had to be, she would no longer talk to me! – I suspect there will be tapes, or illegal phone taps next? gheeesh!

The attorney said probation violation charges were brought against the man, who was then placed under stricter supervision. – we are still waiting to hear these?, the one in the Columbus Dispatch depicted it was a curfew violation. Let the record show, his curfew is at 10pm and he was booked in around 9pm?, it’s not that! Did one of them say they were romantically involved?, that will be fun to prove. I think were back onto some more speculation at best. Anyone for darts?

4/7/2009 8:36:43 PM

msmilly wrote:

His name is Mayer. Enough said!!
4/7/2009 8:43:01 PM

BitterHappiness wrote:

i have been following this story since it broke last week and i’m amazed how everyone who has a negative comment about what happened with John Mayer implies that nothing was ever done about it (he was terminated from his job, hence the reason for his appeal) & that the only true thing being asked for is the truth. If this is the case, why is everyone hung up on him driving while intoxicated? He was never charged with a DUI and will/can never be proven he did so. The ‘professional courtesy’ comment was from the Columbus Dispatch & nowhere (as to date) is this proven. Also, he was off duty (no law against that) & as a peace officer, he is obligated to report or act upon a situation that is in violation of the law. So please, before any more bashing comments & cries of injustice are voiced, try to look at the whole picture from all sides.
4/7/2009 8:49:55 PM

Demosthenes_W wrote:

The Adult Parole Authority should have unlimited discression to keep creeps like sex offenders, theives, and drug abuses behind bars.
4/7/2009 8:55:19 PM

great2bpoor wrote:

mansfield police having dui’s dismissed, po’s not being charged , what next judges on drugs and keeping their job. oh wait?
4/7/2009 9:19:58 PM

L0CKE wrote:

Replying to Demosthenes_W:

The Adult Parole Authority should have unlimited discression to keep creeps like sex offenders, theives, and drug abuses behind bars.

You’ve got to be kidding me. The Adult Parole Authority basically doesn’t answer to no one. They can do what they want to Parolees. The only reason they’re persuing Mayer is because he disobeyed orders, not because he violated someone’s rights..
4/7/2009 9:48:11 PM

worstnightmare wrote:

Have I been under a rock too long and its now acceptable practice to do one’s job while intoxicated?
4/7/2009 10:19:47 PM

iamrevolutionary wrote:

I commented on the original story last week…As a matter of fact, I was the first to comment, then it was “erased”.
What I said then was, and still maintain is, the man was keeping a known sex offender from an eight (8) year old girl…. making sure that the CHILD was SAFE!
How is that wrong, in any way, shape or form?!
4/7/2009 10:35:00 PM

simple-1 wrote:

Spon said. “In a nutshell, the APA wants to impose their lower standard of supervision of offenders rather than our local authorities’ mandate for higher supervision in the field.”

Can you believe this defense attorney is now speaking as if he is a court representative? What’s the courts view of the matter? No comments from them just a defense attorney speaking out on their behalf? Things are all out of wack! Comment anyone?
4/7/2009 10:36:34 PM

L0CKE wrote:

Replying to worstnightmare:

Have I been under a rock too long and its now acceptable practice to do one’s job while intoxicated?

I guess so. If I understand it correctly, he’s not in trouble for doing this under the influence, but because he disobeyed orders. According to a previous article, “Mayer told investigators he had four beers in an hour, three to four hours before the incident” (Article: Parole supervisor loses job over incident). I dont’ drink. Would this make someone drunk or impair their judgement?
4/7/2009 10:43:40 PM

simple-1 wrote:

Hey Spon check your dates! When was the voilation hearing? The report indicates that it happened on Nov. 20th and he was placed on leave Nov. 25th and by checking the calendar, in between that was the weekend. That would mean for this supervisor to make a recommendation that the hearing was held on one of those few remaining dates? Devil_ adv who’s his friend said he’s not aware of a violation hearing or outcome. HMMM
Spon said Mayer could have recommended the probationer be sent back to prison but did not.
Spon are you doing your defense attorney job and feeding us bull?
4/7/2009 10:45:30 PM

simple-1 wrote:

Replying to iamrevolutionary:

I commented on the original story last week…As a matter of fact, I was the first to comment, then it was “erased”.
What I said then was, and still maintain is, the man was keeping a known sex offender from an eight (8) year old girl…. making sure that the CHILD was SAFE!
How is that wrong, in any way, shape or form?!

I could possibly think like that too, but in neither the NJ article or the Dispatch article indicate the child was even there. Why was he by the wifes house per dispatch article after drinking? Why not call his officer to check it out?, he is the supervisor. Was he armed? Devil-adv stated he was in last blogged article. If so did he take gun to place where he was drinking ( bar + gun=against the law) and if not did he go back to his residence and get his gun? If concerned why didn’t he call the child’s father? so many unanswered questions!
4/7/2009 10:58:20 PM

Autumskye wrote:

If the guy was a pervert, then its a good thing Mayer did get involved. . If the creep was not susposed to be around kids, then why isn’t the mom in trouble too? What Mayer did was protect a child from known harm. How is that wrong. Obviously the guys P.O. is slow on the uptake.
4/7/2009 11:15:49 PM

orvil wrote:

bitter++++++++you said it,,he was never charged with DUI+++and thats where the problem is+++why wasn’t he charged with DUI +++four beers in an hour +++what I would like to know is why didn’t the arresting officer after smelling alcohol on John ask him to take a breath test ” thats his duty ” wouldn’t you say.++and if John refused to take the breath test+++the arresting officer should have taken his license on the spot and had his car towed +++you can make all kind of excuses for John but there is no excuse for him NOT being charged with DUI +++no reason for the officer not to charge John with DUI
4/7/2009 11:20:01 PM

AnalGlacoma wrote:

Replying to L0CKE:

it would if you were opperating a motor vehicle.

Replying to worstnightmare:

Have I been under a rock too long and its now acceptable practice to do one’s job while intoxicated?

 

I guess so. If I understand it correctly, he’s not in trouble for doing this under the influence, but because he disobeyed orders. According to a previous article, “Mayer told investigators he had four beers in an hour, three to four hours before the incident” (Article: Parole supervisor loses job over incident). I dont’ drink. Would this make someone drunk or impair their judgement?

4/7/2009 11:41:01 PM

AnalGlacoma wrote:

Replying to AnalGlacoma:

I meant under Ohio law it would.

Replying to L0CKE:

it would if you were opperating a motor vehicle.

Replying to worstnightmare:

Have I been under a rock too long and its now acceptable practice to do one’s job while intoxicated?

 

I guess so. If I understand it correctly, he’s not in trouble for doing this under the influence, but because he disobeyed orders. According to a previous article, “Mayer told investigators he had four beers in an hour, three to four hours before the incident” (Article: Parole supervisor loses job over incident). I dont’ drink. Would this make someone drunk or impair their judgement?

4/7/2009 11:42:17 PM

simple-1 wrote:

Replying to Autumskye:

If the guy was a pervert, then its a good thing Mayer did get involved. . If the creep was not susposed to be around kids, then why isn’t the mom in trouble too? What Mayer did was protect a child from known harm. How is that wrong. Obviously the guys P.O. is slow on the uptake.

Do you even know if John informed the PO of this relationship? Maybe he kept it to him self? Once again, the neither article said a kid was there. Do you have inside info that wasn’t reported? As far as both articles go its starting to look like his excuse for messing up. If he is using that child as an excuse to justify a jealous rage?, then shame on him.

BitterHappiness wrote:

orvil
Yes, John did admit to drinking 4 beers but it was 3-4 hours prior to the incident. That’s kind of hard to prove he was intoxicated. Of course body weight, metabolism, etc comes into play for your body to get alcohol out of its system but majority of research states 1 beer equals 1 hour. Once more, it’s not proven that John refused to take a breathalyzer so being charged w/a DUI is kind of a mute point. Now i wasn’t there for the incident that led to all of this and i’m thinking it is a good guess you weren’t either. We will never be able to prove if John was intoxicated (or w/a firearm). The fact is, he was fired for his actions (& is now appealing). What kind of punishment is everyone looking for?
4/7/2009 11:51:43 PM

simple-1 wrote:

Replying to iamrevolutionary:

I commented on the original story last week…As a matter of fact, I was the first to comment, then it was “erased”.
What I said then was, and still maintain is, the man was keeping a known sex offender from an eight (8) year old girl…. making sure that the CHILD was SAFE!
How is that wrong, in any way, shape or form?!

Let me pose a question? Articles say he was drinking, he took off in his car b/c to protect the child instead of calling someone else to check it out. ON his way as you say to protect this child, he wrecks into you and kills/harms your child. Would it still be all right for him to have drove over there? what would yo of told him he should have done instead, now your child is harmed?

Remember yousaid as long as he was protecting that other child…………………………………. FYI! I’m not prepared to sacrifice my child life for a possibly fit of jealousy that could of and may be should of been handled by another officer.
4/8/2009 12:00:08 AM

simple-1 wrote:

Replying to BitterHappiness:

orvil
Yes, John did admit to drinking 4 beers but it was 3-4 hours prior to the incident. That’s kind of hard to prove he was intoxicated. Of course body weight, metabolism, etc comes into play for your body to get alcohol out of its system but majority of research states 1 beer equals 1 hour. Once more, it’s not proven that John refused to take a breathalyzer so being charged w/a DUI is kind of a mute point. Now i wasn’t there for the incident that led to all of this and i’m thinking it is a good guess you weren’t either. We will never be able to prove if John was intoxicated (or w/a firearm). The fact is, he was fired for his actions (& is now appealing). What kind of punishment is everyone looking for?

per the dispatch article it states he was held at the jail for a ride due to alcohol. And as far as the gun, If he had it at that new millions of dollar state of the art jail, I’m guessing there would be cameras everywhere. Anyone seen the footage?
4/8/2009 12:06:57 AM

BitterHappiness wrote:

simple1
Please stick to the facts. There are always multiple possibilities to any situation. Was the daughter there? Seems the answer is no. However, only assumptions (by many) state that John was intoxicated. The fact is, John did not crash his car into anything or anyone else and noone was harmed. The fact of the matter is that the mother of a little girl was with a CONVICTED Sex Offender. Did this offender commit any violations? No one is sure at this point but i don’t feel John was completely out of line as some of you feel the need to convey.
4/8/2009 12:10:17 AM

simple-1 wrote:

Replying to BitterHappiness:

simple1
Please stick to the facts. There are always multiple possibilities to any situation. Was the daughter there? Seems the answer is no. However, only assumptions (by many) state that John was intoxicated. The fact is, John did not crash his car into anything or anyone else and noone was harmed. The fact of the matter is that the mother of a little girl was with a CONVICTED Sex Offender. Did this offender commit any violations? No one is sure at this point but i don’t feel John was completely out of line as some of you feel the need to convey.

Im trying to get the facts but it looks like NJ only wants to focus on mostly JM side of story. I say follow up with the dispatch as they are not connected with the local politics. Fair and balanced w/o spin. How many times have you drove dunk and didn’t hurt anyone? does that make it ok? NO exactky my point. But per the dispatch article it states the jail made him get a ride, then why was that? Just lookin 4 the truth!
4/8/2009 12:18:32 AM

faithandhope7 wrote:

Replying to L0CKE:

Replying to worstnightmare:

Have I been under a rock too long and its now acceptable practice to do one’s job while intoxicated?

 

I guess so. If I understand it correctly, he’s not in trouble for doing this under the influence, but because he disobeyed orders. According to a previous article, “Mayer told investigators he had four beers in an hour, three to four hours before the incident” (Article: Parole supervisor loses job over incident). I dont’ drink. Would this make someone drunk or impair their judgement?

I people assuming ” why ” was he not charged with dui “why” the officer did not take his plates, tow the car or take him to jail. You are not intoxicated having 4 beers in 1 hour —3 to 4 hours prior & beer lingers on your breath!! also the offender is not to have a relationship with any women witth CHILDREN, I thougt that PO’s and the APA staff work together?
4/8/2009 12:36:44 AM

BitterHappiness wrote:

Simple1
i have read the article from the Dispatch and yes, they did state that “They made sure he got a ride home rather than drive”. Why this was i am not sure but since he was not charged with DUI or even given a breathalyzer, no one will be able to prove the degree of his impairement (if any) the night in question. i’ve just noticed a large amount of comments/opinions made in a negative manner towards John and law enforcement in general. As stated earlier, i wasn’t there but i don’t feel John was Completely out of line. He made some mistakes and lost his job because so. i don’t see the need to keep attacking him.
4/8/2009 12:43:03 AM

Demosthenes_W wrote:

Replying to faithandhope7:

I thougt that PO’s and the APA staff work together?

According to Andrea Carson, an ODRC spokeswoman, “Unit supervisors (like Mayer), their job is to be in the office.” He lost his job because he was not working as a team player. He was jealous that his ex was seeing someone he didn’t like, and he may have used his privilage of office to seek revenge. As for the “sex offender” status of the parolee, he was incarcerated for sexual battery, which is not a crime against a child, and may have posed no danger to her daughter.

4/8/2009 1:13:14 AM

simple-1 wrote:

Replying to BitterHappiness:

Simple1
i have read the article from the Dispatch and yes, they did state that “They made sure he got a ride home rather than drive”. Why this was i am not sure but since he was not charged with DUI or even given a breathalyzer, no one will be able to prove the degree of his impairement (if any) the night in question. i’ve just noticed a large amount of comments/opinions made in a negative manner towards John and law enforcement in general. As stated earlier, i wasn’t there but i don’t feel John was Completely out of line. He made some mistakes and lost his job because so. i don’t see the need to keep attacking him.

I don’t feel I am attacking anyone! Just asking questions and maybe you, the NJ, TGRILL(who has the facts) or others can shed more light on the situation. I don’t feel it is wrong to ask questions, especially when things like this happen. And ya it’s a shame with all the things going around in LE these days. conitnued……………………….
4/8/2009 1:16:28 AM

simple-1 wrote:

continued……………

for example Cuyahoga County and now the article today regarding invests into RCSO due to an informant situation (Mansfield Man Sentenced for Kentucky Murder). States US attorney is investigating. What is going on here?
4/8/2009 1:20:54 AM

orvil wrote:

Replying to BitterHappiness:

orvil
Yes, John did admit to drinking 4 beers but it was 3-4 hours prior to the incident. That’s kind of hard to prove he was intoxicated. Of course body weight, metabolism, etc comes into play for your body to get alcohol out of its system but majority of research states 1 beer equals 1 hour. Once more, it’s not proven that John refused to take a breathalyzer so being charged w/a DUI is kind of a mute point. Now i wasn’t there for the incident that led to all of this and i’m thinking it is a good guess you weren’t either. We will never be able to prove if John was intoxicated (or w/a firearm). The fact is, he was fired for his actions (& is now appealing). What kind of punishment is everyone looking for?

bitter++you missed my point ++my point being ++the cop smelled alcohol on John ++there for the cop should have given John a breath test to see if John was intoxicated or not ++the cop didn’t do it
4/8/2009 1:33:22 AM

simple-1 wrote:

Replying to BitterHappiness:

Simple1
i have read the article from the Dispatch and yes, they did state that “They made sure he got a ride home rather than drive”.

I feel there are alot more facts out there that are not being share. Maybe due to the appeal? But come on, why else would the jail let him drive unless they felt he was unsafe to drive? Yea, there’s probably not physical evidence now you attorney (lol). However, if outside LE questioned the jail and officers who were at the seen, Im sure they wouldn’t risk their careers! They might admit they made mistake by not testing him? But we probably wont know any of this until the end! This whole situation is sad!

4/8/2009 1:39:25 AM  

JWetzel40080723075632 wrote:

Replying to L0CKE:

Replying to worstnightmare:

Have I been under a rock too long and its now acceptable practice to do one’s job while intoxicated?

 

I guess so. If I understand it correctly, he’s not in trouble for doing this under the influence, but because he disobeyed orders. According to a previous article, “Mayer told investigators he had four beers in an hour, three to four hours before the incident” (Article: Parole supervisor loses job over incident). I dont’ drink. Would this make someone drunk or impair their judgement?
There are a couple of factors that determine the outcome of a BAC and whether or not a person is “drunk.” Did they eat before drinking? What is their hgt and wgt? Its not a simple matter of saying “He had 4 beers so he was drunk.” The body burns off alcohol at a certain rate per hour.So without a breath or blood test to determine his alcohol content, we will never know
4/8/2009 7:29:18 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to BitterHappiness:

i have been following this story since it broke last week and i’m amazed how everyone who has a negative comment about what happened with John Mayer implies that nothing was ever done about it (he was terminated from his job, hence the reason for his appeal) & that the only true thing being asked for is the truth. If this is the case, why is everyone hung up on him driving while intoxicated? He was never charged with a DUI and will/can never be proven he did so. The ‘professional courtesy’ comment was from the Columbus Dispatch & nowhere (as to date) is this proven. Also, he was off duty (no law against that) & as a peace officer, he is obligated to report or act upon a situation that is in violation of the law. So please, before any more bashing comments & cries of injustice are voiced, try to look at the whole picture from all sides.

We still know of NO probation violations, Oh – John saw romance in his ex-wifes eyes?, something he couldn’t do.
4/8/2009 7:35:05 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to BitterHappiness:

i have been following this story since it broke last week and i’m amazed how everyone who has a negative comment about what happened with John Mayer implies that nothing was ever done about it (he was terminated from his job, hence the reason for his appeal) & that the only true thing being asked for is the truth. If this is the case, why is everyone hung up on him driving while intoxicated? He was never charged with a DUI and will/can never be proven he did so. The ‘professional courtesy’ comment was from the Columbus Dispatch & nowhere (as to date) is this proven. Also, he was off duty (no law against that) & as a peace officer, he is obligated to report or act upon a situation that is in violation of the law. So please, before any more bashing comments & cries of injustice are voiced, try to look at the whole picture from all sides.

We still know of NO probation violations, Oh – John saw romance in his ex-wifes eyes?, something he couldn’t do.
4/8/2009 7:35:05 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to iamrevolutionary:

I commented on the original story last week…As a matter of fact, I was the first to comment, then it was “erased”.
What I said then was, and still maintain is, the man was keeping a known sex offender from an eight (8) year old girl…. making sure that the CHILD was SAFE!
How is that wrong, in any way, shape or form?!

Like I’ve told everyone else, I don’t know Mr. Mayer, but I do know the ex, the probationer, the child, and the childs biological father, all good people that like you and I, make mistakes. There’s nothing wrong in correcting one mistake, getting Mayer out of their life. The daughter is being used as a spin by Mr. Spon and I hope he someday pays for it. I will NOT go into the personal details of what is going on, other than to say Mr. Mayer screwed up out of pure self image issues and jealousy, that is why he was told to STAY AWAY! I’m just glad he didn’t shoot everyone there before backup arrived and glad this can go to trial.
4/8/2009 7:55:22 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to simple-1:

Hey Spon check your dates! When was the voilation hearing? The report indicates that it happened on Nov. 20th and he was placed on leave Nov. 25th and by checking the calendar, in between that was the weekend. That would mean for this supervisor to make a recommendation that the hearing was held on one of those few remaining dates? Devil_ adv who’s his friend said he’s not aware of a violation hearing or outcome. HMMM
Spon said Mayer could have recommended the probationer be sent back to prison but did not.
Spon are you doing your defense attorney job and feeding us bull?

 

It is my understanding now, there was a hearing, there were allegations made, no violations imposed due to the fact the ones Mayer thought he was in violation of were granted exceptions to the rules. As of Monday the probationer was not charged anything and is under normal probation, if strickter, I would think I would attach a GPS, which he’s not.
4/8/2009 8:07:49 AM

Demosthenes_W wrote:

Replying to Devils_Advocate:

I’m just glad he didn’t shoot everyone there before backup arrived and glad this can go to trial.

Is this going to trial? Was Mayer brought up on charges? I hope not. It is an internal police matter and should stay within the offices of the APA. He has already lost his job and not likely to work in law enforcement again. Give the guy a break.

The minute you expose this to public scrutiny, faith in the badge will erode. If he broke some laws, he should be dismissed … quietly.
4/8/2009 8:11:09 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to BitterHappiness:

Simple1
i have read the article from the Dispatch and yes, they did state that “They made sure he got a ride home rather than drive”. Why this was i am not sure but since he was not charged with DUI or even given a breathalyzer, no one will be able to prove the degree of his impairement (if any) the night in question. i’ve just noticed a large amount of comments/opinions made in a negative manner towards John and law enforcement in general. As stated earlier, i wasn’t there but i don’t feel John was Completely out of line. He made some mistakes and lost his job because so. i don’t see the need to keep attacking him.

We got your point, we just dont need vigilante’s who DON’T follow direct orders and simply believe an appeal is another waste of taxpayers money. Unless we see violations by the probationer, he loses, simple as that. In my opinion this wont go to a jury trial and will be plea agreements and payoffs prior to the witnesses WHO WERE THERE are heard.
4/8/2009 8:29:25 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to Demosthenes_W:

Replying to Devils_Advocate:

I’m just glad he didn’t shoot everyone there before backup arrived and glad this can go to trial.

 

Is this going to trial? Was Mayer brought up on charges? I hope not. It is an internal police matter and should stay within the offices of the APA. He has already lost his job and not likely to work in law enforcement again. Give the guy a break.

The minute you expose this to public scrutiny, faith in the badge will erode. If he broke some laws, he should be dismissed … quietly.

and that’s what probably what would have happened not Mr. Spon using useless propaganda in the paper if there’s no violations. The people in Richland County should know the truth, but the truth is…your right, and once again we are left to speculate after this is all swept away through an attorney who skilfully deflected the charges to justify.
4/8/2009 8:54:19 AM

The Above comments were plucked from NJ ?

orvil wrote:

Bitter+++you missed my point++my point being+++the officer smelled alcohol on John +++ the officer should have given John a breath test +++thats his duty+ would you agree.++wether John took the breath test or not the officer should have wanted to give John One.
4/8/2009 8:10:00 AM

orvil wrote:

Replying to orvil:

Bitter+++you missed my point++my point being+++the officer smelled alcohol on John +++ the officer should have given John a breath test +++thats his duty+ would you agree.++wether John took the breath test or not the officer should have wanted to give John One.
the officer is guilty for not asking John to take the test++and John is guilty for drinking beer and driving++joe swartz and skippy freeman would not have gotten away without being asked to take the breath test ++so why should John
4/8/2009 8:15:40 AM

serenity8 wrote:

Replying to orvil:

Replying to orvil:

Bitter+++you missed my point++my point being+++the officer smelled alcohol on John +++ the officer should have given John a breath test +++thats his duty+ would you agree.++wether John took the breath test or not the officer should have wanted to give John One.


the officer is guilty for not asking John to take the test++and John is guilty for drinking beer and driving++joe swartz and skippy freeman would not have gotten away without being asked to take the breath test ++so why should John

Who+++is+++Joe Swartz+++and+++Skippy Freeman???

4/8/2009 9:13:15 AM

jashelby wrote:

Karma has a way of getting back at people. John Mayer’s brother, County Prosecutor Jim Mayer, has fired people for doing things substantially less serious than his brother.
4/8/2009 9:17:36 AM

normadesmond wrote:

Boy John Spohn is making Mayer sound like a saint. Not the same person I’ve heard about. I wonder if John had is weapon with him while he making his arrest? The officers do carry weapons. Scary, but its not the first time John has had problems. This is just the icing on the cake.
4/8/2009 9:24:09 AM

MansfieldBURN wrote:

maybe it just isnt her luck to have him as an ex-husband or maybe the ex-wife is just a horny drug-addict who doesnt care of the well-being of her child,or maybe he is just a control freak and cant let her go,i mean he is a supervisor and is used to being in charge!
4/8/2009 9:26:58 AM

orvil wrote:

Replying to serenity8:

Replying to orvil:

Replying to orvil:

Bitter+++you missed my point++my point being+++the officer smelled alcohol on John +++ the officer should have given John a breath test +++thats his duty+ would you agree.++wether John took the breath test or not the officer should have wanted to give John One.


the officer is guilty for not asking John to take the test++and John is guilty for drinking beer and driving++joe swartz and skippy freeman would not have gotten away without being asked to take the breath test ++so why should John

 

Who+++is+++Joe Swartz+++and+++Skippy Freeman???

serenity8 ++ hypothetical++no one ++made up
4/8/2009 9:27:42 AM

serenity8 wrote:

Probation officers expect their offenders to abide by the rules, and if they don’t, there are consequences. So, probation officers should be expected to abide by the rules as well. John chose to disobey a direct order to leave this guy alone. Now he has to face the consequences. Practice what you preach.
4/8/2009 9:35:23 AM

tgrillo0521 wrote:

Probation officers expect probationers to abide by the rules because they have previously been in trouble with the law….which is the reason they are on probation!

I dont understand… as a parent of a 16 year old daughter, why any of you are defending these animals!

We are the first to whine if our Law Enforcement don’t “protect and serve”, and yet in this case…you condemn him for doing so!
4/8/2009 9:50:23 AM

jck731 wrote:

I was under the impresstion that it was a corrections officer that smelled the alcoholic beverage(alcohol has no smell) on Mr Mayer. Did the officer have the authority to administer the test ? Did the officer observe Mr. Mayer drive ?
4/8/2009 10:06:36 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to tgrillo0521:

Probation officers expect probationers to abide by the rules because they have previously been in trouble with the law….which is the reason they are on probation!

I dont understand… as a parent of a 16 year old daughter, why any of you are defending these animals!

We are the first to whine if our Law Enforcement don’t “protect and serve”, and yet in this case…you condemn him for doing so!

Yes TGRILL, we should listen to you. If I remember correctly you posted a comment that the probationer made 7 VIOLATIONS, and it was a FACT. Were still wanting to hear them. It’s my understanding the judge found no grounds of violation(s) when he went before him, do you know something we dont know or are you still spinning to help get this swept under the rug? I take your either another vigilante who does not follow the rules or an informant who is about to lose some income.
4/8/2009 10:09:02 AM  

zoozane wrote:

There has to be some consequence for a man with this many years of service short of termination. I mean really. Hang in there
4/8/2009 10:13:33 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Is it me or is the NJ deleting posts to eliminate outside opinions. Check this link http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090407/NEWS01/90407029 here was the forum a while ago, you be the judge! Talk about losing your freedom to protest!
4/8/2009 10:16:10 AM

TheSinner wrote:

Ooops, good point Norman
If the PO was carrying a weapon, AND drinking, that’s a bad one. Felony, I believe.
4/8/2009 10:16:40 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090407/NEWS01/90407029

COPY AND PASTE THIS?, WHAT’S UP?
4/8/2009 10:19:10 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Quit plucking comments NJ, I am an IT professional and I’m on to your tactics to to shut everyone up!
I take it Mr. Mayer has an inside family member that don’t like what they’re hearing?
4/8/2009 11:02:21 AM

thechasman wrote:

Yes TGRILL, we should listen to you. If I remember correctly you posted a comment that the probationer made 7 VIOLATIONS, and it was a FACT. Were still wanting to hear them. It’s my understanding the judge found no grounds of violation(s) when he went before him, do you know something we dont know or are you still spinning to help get this swept under the rug? I take your either another vigilante who does not follow the rules or an informant who is about to lose some income

…And where exactly is your PROOF of YOUR DUMB *** OPINIONS? All your doing on here is ranting & raving, crying about how Mayer did wrong & Trying to spin this as the Sex- offender is the victim. FACT – The guy was on probation for a sex offense. Part of his probation stipulations are he is NOT to be around children or involved in a relationship without approval. THESE ARE INDEED FACTS! As a probation officer Mayers job is to make sure these guidelines are met
4/8/2009 11:16:50 AM

buckeyesyd wrote:

I have to agree on posts getting deleted, I wanted to respond to simple1 after I checked into something and now his post is gone. Hmmmm!
4/8/2009 11:23:38 AM

buckeyesyd wrote:

Dear Chasman, to correct you, one of his stipulations is to not be around children UNSUPERVISED, and for the relationship allegation – I did hear she gave him a haircut and had lunch, that’s about it – do tell if you know more? Was there some espionage going on?, I heard in Nov. the Patriot Act was still in place and due for renewal in Dec., was he taking full advantage of a law to legally spy on his ex and came across something we’re unaware of before time ran out? The last any of us in here have heard we went from 7 violations down to one, and now the curfew was proven notta since he was booked in at 9pm with a curfew of 10pm. I know we heard John broke 11 departmental rules, we dont know what those are either, is there an ending coming soon?, and will we hear?
4/8/2009 11:41:36 AM

ToddCleveOhio wrote:

I’m tired of that drunken jealous weasel Mayer McCheese trying to get over on the public with his shenanigans. C’mon Holmes, you got fired, now take your medicine and be a good boy about it. Whatever the case, you just got all bent outta shape because your ex is with someone else. Once you got a little booze in your system you got beer muscles and decided to take the law into your own hands. You disobeyed a DIRECT ORDER from your boss, dummy so now you gotta pay the price, just like your parolees. OK ? Got it ? WIth the lousy economy and unemployment, you think you’d be a little smarter than that.
4/8/2009 12:03:19 PM

tgrillo0521 wrote:

Just a little tid bit of information for everyone….again FACT…not speculation:

1) John Mayer was not intoxicated as his BAC was .00176 which is not even 25% of the prohibited level.
2) John Mayer was NOT carrying a weapon and did not have a weapon at his disposal. Incredulously, one of the petty charges attempting to justify his termination, is that he did not have his weapon!!

4/8/2009 12:38:20 PM

tom1744 wrote:

Replying to tgrillo0521:

Just a little tid bit of information for everyone….again FACT…not speculation:

1) John Mayer was not intoxicated as his BAC was .00176 which is not even 25% of the prohibited level.
2) John Mayer was NOT carrying a weapon and did not have a weapon at his disposal. Incredulously, one of the petty charges attempting to justify his termination, is that he did not have his weapon!!
.00176, Who are you trying to kid. That would not even be a sniff. John admitted 4 beers in an hour. I guarantee his blood alchohol level was higher than .00176.
4/8/2009 12:49:28 PM

Twistid wrote:

Did John get a DUI/OVI ticket ? 4 beers in one hour & driving DOES = DUI/OVI .
John is no better than any other man/woman to get busted for a DUI/OVI while drinking & driving !!
But as we all know he is a MAYER and HE WILL get out of this and get his job back , Mansfield is ran by the MAYERS:( MANSFIELD IS A DIRTY DIRTY CITY / VERY CROOKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4/8/2009 12:55:02 PM

Twistid wrote:

Replying to tom1744:

Replying to tgrillo0521:

Just a little tid bit of information for everyone….again FACT…not speculation:

1) John Mayer was not intoxicated as his BAC was .00176 which is not even 25% of the prohibited level.
2) John Mayer was NOT carrying a weapon and did not have a weapon at his disposal. Incredulously, one of the petty charges attempting to justify his termination, is that he did not have his weapon!!


.00176, Who are you trying to kid. That would not even be a sniff. John admitted 4 beers in an hour. I guarantee his blood alchohol level was higher than .00176.

I agree with you TOM ,
4/8/2009 1:02:35 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Ahhhh! thechasman , we meet again. Just like mentioned before, your bold shouting is not evidence and you not helping the attorney with his spin. People are spun out!, and it’s time for the truth!
I have asked you for proof ofthe probationers violations with no avail?, hear are the facts I know as true, the probationer had his hearing before the judge and was not charged with ANY probation violations. This to me proves to be a problem for Mr.Mayer in his appeal, and the biggest FACT is…he had orders to stay away, then acted alone, that to me is a death sentence to not only his career, but anyone who tries to justify it. If I were you I would let it go, he’s not coming back, public relations depends on it!
4/8/2009 1:04:08 PM

lawsway wrote:

WELL WELL WELL I GESS WHAT HE DONE MIGHT NOT BEEN 100 PERCENT WRIGHT BUT THATS NOT UP TOO US…. WHAT ABOUT ANOTHER PERSON IN THEIR OFFICE THAT SHOOT HIS EX-WIFE BUT HE STILL KEEPS HIS JOB…….ITS BEEN A WHILE BACK IN THE NEWS JOURNAL BUT KNOW ONE THROUGH A FIT ABOUT THAT TO MUCH….I DONT BLAME JOHN MAYER FOR LOOKEN OUT FOR HIS CHILD ONE BIT……I WISH MORE PEOPLE WOULD CARE FOR THEIR CHILDREN AND MYBE,OUR KIDS WOULD HAVE BETTER VALUES AND CARE FOR PEOPLE LIKE THEY USE TO…. JOHN I PRAY YOUR GET YOUR JOB BACK AND ONCE THIS IS OVER,I KNOW YOU WILL DO WHATS WRIGHT, GOOD LUCK……………………
4/8/2009 1:13:58 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to lawsway:

WELL WELL WELL I GESS WHAT HE DONE MIGHT NOT BEEN 100 PERCENT WRIGHT BUT THATS NOT UP TOO US…. WHAT ABOUT ANOTHER PERSON IN THEIR OFFICE THAT SHOOT HIS EX-WIFE BUT HE STILL KEEPS HIS JOB…….ITS BEEN A WHILE BACK IN THE NEWS JOURNAL BUT KNOW ONE THROUGH A FIT ABOUT THAT TO MUCH….I DONT BLAME JOHN MAYER FOR LOOKEN OUT FOR HIS CHILD ONE BIT……I WISH MORE PEOPLE WOULD CARE FOR THEIR CHILDREN AND MYBE,OUR KIDS WOULD HAVE BETTER VALUES AND CARE FOR PEOPLE LIKE THEY USE TO…. JOHN I PRAY YOUR GET YOUR JOB BACK AND ONCE THIS IS OVER,I KNOW YOU WILL DO WHATS WRIGHT, GOOD LUCK……………………

Well, well, well – I hope if your his best defense that you go back to bed until you sober up! Dude, what cave did you come out of, the child was not his, nor has the child ever seen this guy on probation. If the parole authority thought he was that bad, he would be wearing a GPS. “Spinners”?
4/8/2009 1:21:16 PM

sparkyT wrote:

WE all know john is as crooked as a dogs hind leg!!! I have known john since jr.high,He was a turd then
and is still a turd!!!!! TIME TO FLUSH!!!!!!

Don’t take it personal john.
4/8/2009 1:26:59 PM

thechasman wrote:

Replying to Devils_Advocate:

Ahhhh! thechasman , we meet again. Just like mentioned before, your bold shouting is not evidence and you not helping the attorney with his spin. People are spun out!, and it’s time for the truth!
I have asked you for proof ofthe probationers violations with no avail?, hear are the facts I know as true, the probationer had his hearing before the judge and was not charged with ANY probation violations. This to me proves to be a problem for Mr.Mayer in his appeal, and the biggest FACT is…he had orders to stay away, then acted alone, that to me is a death sentence to not only his career, but anyone who tries to justify it. If I were you I would let it go, he’s not coming back, public relations depends on it!

Where is your so called Evidence?? The only thing you have proven thus far is you dislike John Mayer & love for sex-offenders.
4/8/2009 2:07:34 PM

tgrillo0521 wrote:

Replying to Twistid:

If you can read….”Mayer told investigators he had four beers in an hour, three to four hours before the incident”.

Replying to tom1744:

Replying to tgrillo0521:

Just a little tid bit of information for everyone….again FACT…not speculation:

1) John Mayer was not intoxicated as his BAC was .00176 which is not even 25% of the prohibited level.
2) John Mayer was NOT carrying a weapon and did not have a weapon at his disposal. Incredulously, one of the petty charges attempting to justify his termination, is that he did not have his weapon!!


.00176, Who are you trying to kid. That would not even be a sniff. John admitted 4 beers in an hour. I guarantee his blood alchohol level was higher than .00176.

 

I agree with you TOM ,

4/8/2009 2:13:10 PM

catchya1lv wrote:

ABOUT THAT TO MUCH….I DONT BLAME JOHN MAYER FOR LOOKEN OUT FOR HIS CHILD ONE BIT……I WISH MORE PEOPLE WOULD CARE FOR THEIR CHILDREN AND MYBE,OUR KIDS WOULD HAVE BETTER VALUES AND CARE FOR PEOPLE LIKE THEY USE TO…. JOHN I PRAY YOUR GET YOUR JOB BACK AND ONCE THIS IS OVER,I KNOW YOU WILL DO WHATS WRIGHT, GOOD LUCK……………………

Well, well, well – I hope if your his best defense that you go back to bed until you sober up! Dude, what cave did you come out of, the child was not his, nor has the child ever seen this guy on probation. If the parole authority thought he was that bad, he would be wearing a GPS. “Spinners”?[/QUOTE]

4/8/2009 2:20:46 PM

thechasman wrote:

Has John Mayer been charged criminally with dui/or any other crimes? NO. Lots of folks on here making accustaions but again John Mayer has no criminal record & until he does… Nothing you say is Fact, Just slander. Facts are he was fired for something he feels was unjust. It will be handled in court. Talk about a public relations nightmare. How do you think it will look when it comes out that the adult parole authority supports & stands behind sex-offenders & their rights before those of an innocent child? I’m sure the public, as a whole will be disgusted. Everyone besides Devils Adv. & your three amigo’s who have been leaving comments are already disgusted. The Majority of people on here & the general public believe a Sex-offenders lost their right to be treated fairly when they unfairly violated someone else sexually.
4/8/2009 2:27:39 PM

tgrillo0521 wrote:

Replying to thechasman:

AMEN!!!!! Well said!

Has John Mayer been charged criminally with dui/or any other crimes? NO. Lots of folks on here making accustaions but again John Mayer has no criminal record & until he does… Nothing you say is Fact, Just slander. Facts are he was fired for something he feels was unjust. It will be handled in court. Talk about a public relations nightmare. How do you think it will look when it comes out that the adult parole authority supports & stands behind sex-offenders & their rights before those of an innocent child? I’m sure the public, as a whole will be disgusted. Everyone besides Devils Adv. & your three amigo’s who have been leaving comments are already disgusted. The Majority of people on here & the general public believe a Sex-offenders lost their right to be treated fairly when they unfairly violated someone else sexually.

4/8/2009 2:31:48 PM

Demosthenes_W wrote:

Replying to thechasman:

The Majority of people on here & the general public believe a Sex-offenders lost their right to be treated fairly when they unfairly violated someone else sexually.

Here, here. And I’ll go a step further: anyone who violates anyone else’s rights (sexually, authoritatively, or otherwise) should lose their rights. If you infringe on someone’s right of due process or privacy or any of the rights in the United States Constitution, you should lose your rights for life without the possibility of regaining them.
4/8/2009 2:36:19 PM

lawsway wrote:

MY-REPLY TO DEVILS_ADVOCATE————-WELL IF ITS NOT HIS CHILD @LEAST HE CARES FROM WHAT I HERE,,,SHOULDNT YOU CARE ABOUT KIDS AROUND THESE SEX-OFFENDERS I DO ..I DONT KNOW ALL WHAT WENT ON BUT DONT JUDGE WITH OUT ALL THE FACT THAT ARE TRUE!!!!!
4/8/2009 2:42:48 PM

L0CKE wrote:

Replying to Demosthenes_W:

Replying to thechasman:

The Majority of people on here & the general public believe a Sex-offenders lost their right to be treated fairly when they unfairly violated someone else sexually.

 

Here, here. And I’ll go a step further: anyone who violates anyone else’s rights (sexually, authoritatively, or otherwise) should lose their rights. If you infringe on someone’s right of due process or privacy or any of the rights in the United States Constitution, you should lose your rights for life without the possibility of regaining them.

Are you advocating a police state?
4/8/2009 2:48:18 PM

Demosthenes_W wrote:

Replying to L0CKE:

Replying to Demosthenes_W:

Replying to thechasman:


Here, here. And I’ll go a step further: anyone who violates anyone else’s rights (sexually, authoritatively, or otherwise) should lose their rights. If you infringe on someone’s right of due process or privacy or any of the rights in the United States Constitution, you should lose your rights for life without the possibility of regaining them.

 

Are you advocating a police state?

If that’s what it takes to get this country back to what it needs to be, so be it. Mayer should not be limited by technicalities. I said it in another post, and I’ll say it here. This is an internal police mater and has no business being exposed to the public. It erodes our faith in the Law. We don’t know the whole story. Give him a chance.
4/8/2009 3:07:40 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to lawsway:

MY-REPLY TO DEVILS_ADVOCATE————-WELL IF ITS NOT HIS CHILD @LEAST HE CARES FROM WHAT I HERE,,,SHOULDNT YOU CARE ABOUT KIDS AROUND THESE SEX-OFFENDERS I DO ..I DONT KNOW ALL WHAT WENT ON BUT DONT JUDGE WITH OUT ALL THE FACT THAT ARE TRUE!!!!!

I’ll tell you this!, I can trust this guy with my life, I trust his word, and I would let him watch my 8 year old daughter, who by the way appears to have better logic than you any day. You can go back to sleep, your ignorance to the subject does not really deserve a reply, I just had to.
4/8/2009 3:14:04 PM

L0CKE wrote:

To Demosthenes_W:
Your police state concept is both a troublesome and contradictory philosophy.

Troublesome:
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both” Benjamin Franlin.

Contradictory:
You said that “If you infringe on someone’s right of due process or privacy or any of the rights in the United States Constitution, you should lose your rights for life without the possibility of regaining them.” Isn’t that why we SHOULD have public review of authority. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
4/8/2009 3:19:53 PM

thechasman wrote:

Replying to Devils_Advocate:

Replying to lawsway:

MY-REPLY TO DEVILS_ADVOCATE————-WELL IF ITS NOT HIS CHILD @LEAST HE CARES FROM WHAT I HERE,,,SHOULDNT YOU CARE ABOUT KIDS AROUND THESE SEX-OFFENDERS I DO ..I DONT KNOW ALL WHAT WENT ON BUT DONT JUDGE WITH OUT ALL THE FACT THAT ARE TRUE!!!!!

 

I’ll tell you this!, I can trust this guy with my life, I trust his word, and I would let him watch my 8 year old daughter, who by the way appears to have better logic than you any day. You can go back to sleep, your ignorance to the subject does not really deserve a reply, I just had to.
If you feel ok with a sex-offender watching your 8 year old maybe the children services should be checking you out… And lets not be nasty to others for their opinions.. Everyone on here besides you & your 3 Amigio’s can see how sick & dangourous it is to allow sex- offenders around children. You on the other hand keep defending him
4/8/2009 3:27:26 PM

L0CKE wrote:

Replying to L0CKE:

To Demosthenes_W:
Your police state concept is both a troublesome and contradictory philosophy.

Troublesome:
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both” Benjamin Franlin.

Contradictory:
You said that “If you infringe on someone’s right of due process or privacy or any of the rights in the United States Constitution, you should lose your rights for life without the possibility of regaining them.” Isn’t that why we SHOULD have public review of authority. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It’s not infringement on rights if police do it. Besides, the guy he was after was a sex offender. Anything can be done to them.
4/8/2009 3:30:04 PM

thechasman wrote:

Devils Adv—–Your mindset is kinda disturbing. That you would be ok with a convicted sex-offender watching your child??? I think that speaks volumes about the type of person you are. Enough said…
4/8/2009 3:36:52 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

I agree to everyone’s point in defense of their own, everyone does need to calm down before there’s an uprising of authority (a police state). The last time I knew, I thought – my father spent 37 months in a Korean POW camp so we could keep certain rights, are we losing them as we speak?
I have spoke on the behalf of a fallen brother, you criticize me, you call me a defender of bad behavior in which I do not. I defend the FACT we have laws and judgements and I find some in here do not agree with the fact that this probationer, served his time, followed parole for the last 5 years and you say with weeks to go and he’s free from parole/probation and he’s gonna jeopardize that?. He’s smarter than that, and I believe Mr.Mayer had a vendetta to harrass him because he did not agree with the plea of sexual assualt from rape, time served, and the fact that his own parole officer was about to sign a release giving him free reign to pursue more than friendship with his ex-wife! Bottom Line!
4/8/2009 3:47:44 PM

lawsway wrote:

REPLY-TO-DEVILS_ADVOCATE——–well i gess your in tight with this sex-offender the way it sounds to me-i hope your 8 year old is smarter then you think..i dont want any of my kids around a sex-offender but i gess you dont care or know something that we dont know..SO PLEASE WATCH YOUR KIDS AROUND ANY SEX-OFFENDER—PLEASE –im done
4/8/2009 3:54:10 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to thechasman:

Devils Adv—–Your mindset is kinda disturbing. That you would be ok with a convicted sex-offender watching your child??? I think that speaks volumes about the type of person you are. Enough said…

He’s a sex offender, not a pedaphile. You can taint some of the people, but you can’t taint me. When this is over, can we still be friends? Abe Lincoln once said to eliminate your enemies you should make them your friends. We need to sit down and have a cup of coffee when this is over, we can tell war stories and how we would solve world hunger rather than wasting our breath here. Maybe share the theory on mindset, or using fear to control it? Deal?
4/8/2009 3:58:10 PM

thechasman wrote:

Devils Adv. — No, what you have really done the last few days has been to slander James Mayer… You have made all kinds of wild accusations regarding his conduct… True or not.. You have no proof.. He has no criminal record. No DUI’s nothing. Your pervert friend on the other hand doe’s. Yes he has served his time & has paid his debt, but it shows bad taste to allow him to be around children or any other sex-offender period… Would you allow a Drug dealer to become a pharmyicist? A person convicted of a violent offense to become a cop… No.. There are laws against these things because it protects the innocents as well as the the guilty.. I trully doubt your father served time in a prison camp so convicted sex-offenders could have free reign on children & other innocents… No . Just the opposite. To protect the rights & libertys of the innocents.
4/8/2009 4:13:08 PM

L0CKE wrote:

Replying to lawsway:

REPLY-TO-DEVILS_ADVOCATE——–well i gess your in tight with this sex-offender the way it sounds to me-i hope your 8 year old is smarter then you think..i dont want any of my kids around a sex-offender but i gess you dont care or know something that we dont know..SO PLEASE WATCH YOUR KIDS AROUND ANY SEX-OFFENDER—PLEASE –im done

I assume you are talkeding about registered sex offenders, not unregistered sex offenders. Most sex offences are not committed by repeat offenders, but by first time offenders.
4/8/2009 4:17:18 PM

Demosthenes_W wrote:

thechasman, I agree with you.

It’s us verses them. That’s all I have to say. Those who cross the line and become a criminal, and those of us who haven’t. Criminals don’t have rights.

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to lawsway:

REPLY-TO-DEVILS_ADVOCATE——–well i gess your in tight with this sex-offender the way it sounds to me-i hope your 8 year old is smarter then you think..i dont want any of my kids around a sex-offender but i gess you dont care or know something that we dont know..SO PLEASE WATCH YOUR KIDS AROUND ANY SEX-OFFENDER—PLEASE –im done

Sir, Please do not take as coming off disrespectful. But, I believe once an offender has paid there debt to the crime commited and bring them back into society using guidelines set forth by the parole authority we need to live and let live. Sex crimes such as sexual assualt is a crime I believe is not pre-meditated, just a cause of action when we put ourselves in a bad situations. I am by no means defending a friend for what happened, he knows he screwed up, and some are just not willing to let him go. Take care!
4/8/2009 4:28:53 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to Demosthenes_W:

thechasman, I agree with you.

It’s us verses them. That’s all I have to say. Those who cross the line and become a criminal, and those of us who haven’t. Criminals don’t have rights.

Sorry you feel that way, us vs them? I am NO criminal, don’t have a record, never will, like I said…when you see my name in the paper it will be my obituary. Oh, a little News Flash for the fella’s who seem to know it all. I hear probationer was just put on phase2, sounds like a promotion to me, not what Mr Spon said in his little spin. He was also told today he is not in ANY investigation, and there were NO PAROLE VIOLATIONS, therefor by, by Mayer for good! The proof will be in the pudding soon, and you WON’T read it in the NJ, keep your eye on the Columbus Dispatch – the real story is coming!
4/8/2009 4:43:25 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to thechasman:

Devils Adv. — No, what you have really done the last few days has been to slander James Mayer… You have made all kinds of wild accusations regarding his conduct… True or not.. You have no proof.. He has no criminal record. No DUI’s nothing. Your pervert friend on the other hand doe’s. Yes he has served his time & has paid his debt, but it shows bad taste to allow him to be around children or any other sex-offender period… Would you allow a Drug dealer to become a pharmyicist? A person convicted of a violent offense to become a cop… No.. There are laws against these things because it protects the innocents as well as the the guilty.. I trully doubt your father served time in a prison camp so convicted sex-offenders could have free reign on children & other innocents… No . Just the opposite. To protect the rights & libertys of the innocents.

Slander, I bet you can prove that? So, I take meeting for coffee is out of the picture?
4/8/2009 4:52:07 PM

wholotta wrote:

JUST a sex offender? Hope you have very savvy females in your life. Unless it was the case of a Daddy who was po’d about his 17 year old dating a 19 year old, you are naive.

BTW it is pedophile
4/8/2009 5:03:29 PM

gramgi wrote:

Devil, you are actually more scary than your perverted friend, because you have been brainwashed by all your ex con friends at the Vol.Am. To minimze a sex act done to another and to spend 2 years in prison and 5 years probation tells those of us with morals exactly where your mind set is, and since you’re good friends with Mayer’s ex, you of course are going to believe everything a bitter ex wife has to say. A sex crime is committted because of putting yourself in a bad situation? How about asking the victims of sex crimes just how long it takes them to “let it go”. I don’t believe for a minute you have never committed a crime you know all the pat answers criminals give, or maybe you just haven’t gotten caught yet.
4/8/2009 5:52:50 PM

Exposerofmorons wrote:

Repying to locke: [quote]It’s not infringement on rights if police do it. Besides, the guy he was after was a sex offender. Anything can be done to them.
[/quote]

Are you crazy, stupid, or both?? Those have to be 2 of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.
4/8/2009 6:01:11 PM

Demosthenes_W wrote:

Replying to Exposerofmorons:

Repying to locke: [quote]It’s not infringement on rights if police do it. Besides, the guy he was after was a sex offender. Anything can be done to them.
[/quote]

Are you crazy, stupid, or both?? Those have to be 2 of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.

But Locke is finally right on this one. I’m glad he’s finally making sense.
4/8/2009 6:26:48 PM

L0CKE wrote:

Replying to Exposerofmorons:

Repying to locke: [quote]It’s not infringement on rights if police do it. Besides, the guy he was after was a sex offender. Anything can be done to them.
[/quote]

Are you crazy, stupid, or both?? Those have to be 2 of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.

Exposerofmorons, you are right. I don’t believe either statement. (Refer to my other posts for context.) I was just trying to see who would agree with it, and I guess Demosthenes_W seems to. I wonder who else does. The jury is still out on this one. We don’t have enough information on the parolee or Mayer to pass judgment. I believe, unlike Demosthenes, that Law Enforcement officials – more than anyone because of the corrupting influences of power – should be held publicly accountable.

Is there to be an investigation that might lead to a grand jury incitement, or is this destined to be hushed behind the walls of the APA?
4/8/2009 6:39:08 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to gramgi:

Devil, you are actually more scary than your perverted friend, because you have been brainwashed by all your ex con friends at the Vol.Am. To minimze a sex act done to another and to spend 2 years in prison and 5 years probation tells those of us with morals exactly where your mind set is, and since you’re good friends with Mayer’s ex, you of course are going to believe everything a bitter ex wife has to say. A sex crime is committted because of putting yourself in a bad situation? How about asking the victims of sex crimes just how long it takes them to “let it go”. I don’t believe for a minute you have never committed a crime you know all the pat answers criminals give, or maybe you just haven’t gotten caught yet.

When this is all done and you fools get the REAL story, may you know who I am and what I’m all about. This forum draws challenge to the attorney’s paid ads and the counter blows I give his story hurts, just admit it
4/8/2009 6:54:33 PM

BitterHappiness wrote:

Devils_Adv
First i would like to thank you for allowing myself & others the chance to follow up on the posts that began last night when this update was released. As far as a ploy or a cover-up is concerned regarding this, i’m just not completely positive. i am going to have to agree with those who have challenged you regarding this whole situation. You say you want truth but tell anyone who is in favor of John to get their facts straight. John was fired from his job for violating a supervisors order as well as other rules. You (and others) say he needs to be accountable & from what is being reported, he has. HE NO LONGER HAS A JOB. You made a previous comment about witch hunts being illegal but from most of your responses, that is what it appears (@ least to me) what you are doing. i have personally tried looking at the whole picture but i must say, you truly are biased. Nothing that is brought forth in John’s defense will ever be believed by you (as well as others).
(continued)
4/8/2009 7:09:00 PM

BitterHappiness wrote:

(continue)
Devils_Adv
John was found guilty of breaking departmental rules and was dealt with by what his department deemed necessary. i’m amazed that a large portions of the comments are the wrong doings brought upon your friend, the Sex Offender. You say he made a mistake & you would trust him with your children. Honestly? i too have children & would not let this man anywhere near them. i pondered how if his only mistake was a physical relationship with a 17yo, how did he Plea Bargain DOWN to 2 charges which landed him 2yrs in prison. His other charges are MUCH more severe (YES i did some homework). You also responded earlier how appeals are a waste of tax dollars & John will probably plea bargain out. Your friend is currently appealing his status of being a Sex Offender (my tax dollars) & plea bargained down as well.
So tell us, what’s the difference? Your friend served his time & now has to register (his punishment). John is unemployed (his punishment).
4/8/2009 7:09:53 PM

gramgi wrote:

You’re right it does hurt to know there are people like you who think that CONVICTED sex offenders have all their issues taken care of, I don’t ever care to know someone like you, you’ve made it clear what you’re about. If something does come of this your friend is still the same felon he has always been, so at least the rest of us are reminded that there are people who think like you and to beware.
4/8/2009 7:10:06 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Gramgi, truth be known… I did get a disorderly conduct once for standing up for what I believe in, kinda like in here, you don’t like what I have to say and wish I could let the spin go on to justify his actions. Let me tell you this my man, the State does not investigate something for 4 months and fire someone for nothing and let what you call a criminal go for nothing. Your right about the victims of these crimes – some cases are scared for life, the offenders are labeled for life and have to live with their mistake, if it was one for the rest of theirs. We however who have not been victims or criminals have to deal with the justice that is served on earth and not judge, for some day I believe we will be judged by a higher power. Does that makes sense? or are you athiest?
4/8/2009 7:10:30 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to gramgi:

You’re right it does hurt to know there are people like you who think that CONVICTED sex offenders have all their issues taken care of, I don’t ever care to know someone like you, you’ve made it clear what you’re about. If something does come of this your friend is still the same felon he has always been, so at least the rest of us are reminded that there are people who think like you and to beware.

Even IF people like you have “In GOD we Trust” taken off our money, I will still believe.
YOUR A FOOL!
4/8/2009 7:16:05 PM

simple-1 wrote:

It’s crazy to here these attorneys use the word sex offender to excuse their clients conduct! All I have to say is one of them might have a sex offender either working for them or involved!
4/8/2009 7:18:42 PM

simple-1 wrote:

wheres the rest of my statement and questions
4/8/2009 7:22:45 PM

gramgi wrote:

When a person breaks the law, they set themselves up to be judged by everyone, if they don’t like the way that feels then don’t commit crimes, like I said before when a person causes intentional harm to another it is not a mistake. Typical thing to say about being judged by a higher power, since so many find repentence in prison why is there such a revolving door at the prison gate. No I’m not an athiest, I believe in justice though, and if Mayer did something wrong then he should be held accountable too. I’m just fed up with the poor me attitude that felons have.
4/8/2009 7:30:03 PM

simple-1 wrote:

So Devil tell me. Whens the dispatchs article being released? What all are they looking into? Dis he give you the scoop?
4/8/2009 7:45:52 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to simple-1:

wheres the rest of my statement and questions

I depicted earlier, NJ is not being fair and balanced, they side for corruption and lies while the ones who search for truth are sent packing. I found their little plot this a.m. That’s ok, I’ve saving this for the Dispatch too!, they sure could use expanding their area, and they’ll simply do it telling the truth!
4/8/2009 8:02:59 PM

BitterHappiness wrote:

“I depicted earlier, NJ is not being fair and balanced, they side for corruption and lies while the ones who search for truth are sent packing. I found their little plot this a.m.”
How is it that whenever something doesn’t go in favor of ones personal opinions, there’s always some sort of conspiracy behind it? This isn’t a comment directed at anyone in particular but a belief i personally have about a large amount of those in our society in general.
Besides, in todays day and age (and the different mediums present in which to obtain information), there will always appear to be a “slant” towards one side or another when reporting. The degree of reporting may have something to do with this (not necessarily dirty play).
i don’t feel The Columbus Dispatch is any more unbiased then the News Journal. Th
4/8/2009 8:27:26 PM

simple-1 wrote:

Then I urge the audience to keep an eye on the Dispatch. for the next 60 days, if u want an untainted story and facts. columbusdispatch.com
4/8/2009 8:27:40 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to gramgi:

When a person breaks the law, they set themselves up to be judged by everyone, if they don’t like the way that feels then don’t commit crimes, like I said before when a person causes intentional harm to another it is not a mistake. Typical thing to say about being judged by a higher power, since so many find repentence in prison why is there such a revolving door at the prison gate. No I’m not an athiest, I believe in justice though, and if Mayer did something wrong then he should be held accountable too. I’m just fed up with the poor me attitude that felons have.
Ok, now I’m understanding you, same goes for Mr. Mayer right? Mr.Mayer may not be found guilty of any crimes, but did break departmental rules that cost him his job. I don’t care if some in here don’t believe it may be more than that, you have to wonder if this woman was not his ex would he have cared? The revolving door you keep talking about, some just don’t get it, and for them we throw away the key!
4/8/2009 8:29:16 PM

BitterHappiness wrote:

The Dispatch just happened to bring forth other details to the incident that the News Journal did not.
Don’t really believe it’s because of corruption

4/8/2009 8:30:04 PM

simple-1 wrote:

The dispatch is not local therefore no political ties.. What is needed is Carl Monday! Anyone call the action team?
4/8/2009 8:30:35 PM

simple-1 wrote:

Carl Mondays cell 216-310-3020. if anyone wishes to call that has details!
4/8/2009 8:34:03 PM

BitterHappiness wrote:

Devils_Adv
You expressed earlier that you yourself did not know John Mayer. Would he have cared if the woman involved that evening was not his ex? i cannot answer that and i don’t believe that anyone commenting on this can either. None of here is John (i don’t think anyway) so therefore comments such as this are really not necessary.
Once more, what is it that everyone wants from John? You ask for the truth but speculate (in a negative manner) on John’s actions. Being a friend of both John’s ex & the probationer involved makes you biased towards their side. i don’t blame you for as a friend, one would not expect less. However, John has done this community much good in the past 22yrs as far as keeping the criminal element off the street. He may not be Saint (& most likely a far cry from a sinner) but i find it hard to believe the other parties are completely innocent either.
Some of us are trying to keep open minds to the whole thing. Why can’t many of you?
4/8/2009 8:40:54 PM

simple-1 wrote:

Replying to BitterHappiness:

Devils_Adv
You expressed earlier that you yourself did not know John Mayer. Would he have cared if the woman involved that evening was not his ex? i cannot answer that and i don’t believe that anyone commenting on this can either. None of here is John (i don’t think anyway) so therefore comments such as this are really not necessary.
Once more, what is it that everyone wants from John? You ask for the truth but speculate (in a negative manner) on John’s actions. Being a friend of both John’s ex & the probationer involved makes you biased towards their side. i don’t blame you for as a friend, one would not expect less. However, John has done this community much good in the past 22yrs as far as keeping the criminal element off the street. He may not be Saint (& most likely a far cry from a sinner) but i find it hard to believe the other parties are completely innocent either.

Thank you! John’s attorney

4/8/2009 8:46:11 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Hey folks I’m all for capital punishment, I have often wondered myself if those with life in prison or on death row were executed would we have room for stiffer penaties for crimes as gramgi depicted to slow down the revolving door?. But NO, we want to bang each other up for things we can’t control, it’s our government (elected officials) who needs to fix this problem, if we want change, we have to do it right, and we can’t be above the law. There’s simply not enough law enforcement or military to stop anarchy without destroying what this Country was founded upon.

Thomas Jefferson once said The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first”. I believe what he said, and I also believe if we allow what happened in this case, is exactly what he is talking about
4/8/2009 8:54:04 PM

BitterHappiness wrote:

Simple-1
i apologize but had to laugh. i am not an attorney nor a law-enforcement official. i’m just a citizen of this community trying to use some common sense on an issue so many of you seem to have personal opinions on. Thank You though. i find your remark almost complimentary.
4/8/2009 8:59:16 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Reply to Bitterhappiness last post, I am sorry we got off on the wrong foot. Let’s take John out of it, my passion here is the spin Mr.Spon is putting on this to justify his wrong doings and living above his authority, why does the attorney lie?, is it just because he is Mr. Spon Oh Great attorney of Mansfield?, that’s as much a joke as the biggest firm in Mansfield that everyone’s afraid of, even I value my life more than that, there is no revolving door for anyone who crosses them. Thank you for allowing me to be biased, for like your friend mine has served his community too (Lexington), it’s a small town and in most part we know each other like a community should, nobody’s afraid to see him and they frequent the family business regularily, he’s coached young kids in the past, and he’s been asked to do it again when this crap is over, he’s paid his dues for his crime, let John reap his, what ever happens. I just know it won’t be for the State.
4/8/2009 9:18:54 PM

whiterose2008 wrote:

“In a nutshell, the APA wants to impose their lower standard of supervision of offenders rather than our local authorities’ mandate for higher supervision in the field.” ~Spon

As if the standards could get any lower? LOL

4/8/2009 9:36:11 PM

BitterHappiness wrote:

Devil
i cannot answer as to why an attorney (John’s in particular since he is the one being focused on) lies, or if any lies are being said. i honestly don’t know Mr. Spon and cannot positively agree there is any spin on the situation involved. As stated earlier, i was not there and am trying not to make assumptions. i was raised to believe that justice is blind and we have one of the best legal systems on the planet. i’m sorry to say, but after having researched your friend (who had a good atty by reputation as well i might add), i cannot positively agree with John acting above his authority (sorry, was personally disturbed by the charges). Did he make some mistakes on his actions that evening? Maybe. His dept deemed so and i believe he is addressing it in the manner he is supposed to.
4/8/2009 9:42:31 PM

gramgi wrote:

Mr. Spon is just representing his client just as everyone would want their attorney to do, even though Mayer has not been charged with a crime, he has a right to an appeal for his job. Every criminal sure wants their attorney to do the best for them, but when it comes to a person in law enforcement, there are those who seem to think they shouldn’t be allowed their day to speak, sounds like a double standard.
4/8/2009 9:51:40 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to gramgi:

Mr. Spon is just representing his client just as everyone would want their attorney to do, even though Mayer has not been charged with a crime, he has a right to an appeal for his job. Every criminal sure wants their attorney to do the best for them, but when it comes to a person in law enforcement, there are those who seem to think they shouldn’t be allowed their day to speak, sounds like a double standard.
Does he need charged with a crime to make you feel better?, he simply went above his authority, disregarded direct orders, and was drinking the day he made a bad judgement call, need I say more?
All he lost was his job at this point, I don’t think I would push for anymore investigation, from what I’ve heard ini here they may find the crime your looking for. He works in the public eye, and in my view their trust – who’s next? The State needs a fresh start in the eyes of morality, look for the appeal to get tossed!
4/8/2009 10:20:35 PM

finaljustic wrote:

John Mayer is getting exactly what he has coming to him. Calling the Supervision in Mansfield High standards is a joke to say the least. It is harassment at is finest. If low standards means having a life Mansfield’s adult parole should try it. Criminals will get there self in trouble without any help from APA and at that time APA can do their job instead of out searching for trouble. John Mayer has been living above his authority for a long time and he is not a field officer so there for he is getting exactly what he deserves and should go away quietly.
4/8/2009 10:24:21 PM

gramgi wrote:

Did you have this much outrage when your sex offender friend violated his victim? Or do you just save it for those no good people who are in law enforcement? Your the one that keeps this whole thing going like your obsessed with it, checking all the newspapers to see if you can get a new angle on the incident. You should save your outrage for the rapists, drunk drivers, and murderers, oh yeah they just made a mistake, but boy that Mayer he better hang his head in shame for all his terrible crimes and pay forever, you sure have your values messed up.
4/8/2009 10:35:49 PM

finaljustic wrote:

It is a shame to get the real truth you have to go to an outside source. Unfortunately the Mansfield News Journal seems to be ran by the almighty Phil Messer who will protect law enforcement at all cost. John Mayer should be fired and that is the bottom line. The State of Ohio sets the rules and it is up to local office to abide by the policies and procedures set forth by the department.
4/8/2009 10:50:55 PM

great2bpoor wrote:

Mayer acted like a drunken thug. I believe his pride was more the cause of his actions than his daughter C YA John
4/8/2009 10:55:53 PM

serenity8 wrote:

Replying to tgrillo0521:

Probation officers expect probationers to abide by the rules because they have previously been in trouble with the law….which is the reason they are on probation!

I dont understand… as a parent of a 16 year old daughter, why any of you are defending these animals!

We are the first to whine if our Law Enforcement don’t “protect and serve”, and yet in this case…you condemn him for doing so!

No, I do not condemn John for doing his job. I think he used bad judgement. He was ordered to stay away from the offender. Law enforcement should be held accountable when they don’t follow the rules just like the rest of us. And I am by no means defending the sex offender!!! If it sounded that way, I certainly never meant it to sound that way. I also question the mother as to what type of a parent exposes their child to a sex offender!!!
4/8/2009 11:50:35 PM

serenity8 wrote:

I need to clarify that I am not defending John Mayer or the offender. I think they all screwed up. John was ordered to stay away from him, and he chose to disobey that, therefore he should face the consequences. On the other hand, I do not think he should lose his job over it. A bit harsh in my opinion. Perhaps he should have had the offender’s assigned probation officer do something instead of putting his own *ss on the line. Secondly, the offender was not supposed to be around children or be in a relationship involving children, and he disobeyed that. Put his *ss back in prison where he belongs! And also, in my opinion, the ex is not much of a mother to expose her child to a sex offender! Just my opinion…
4/9/2009 12:10:50 AM

serenity8 wrote:

Does anyone know anything about the sex offender’s crime? Did it involve a child???
4/9/2009 12:23:37 AM

plastercastered wrote:

I’ve known him since the early 80’s, holier than thou w/ a badge. If people just knew who they were defending they’d flip. Once again I’m just satisfied knowing that these crooked mansfield legal/political figures who really are STILL rotten to the core will get their day in court with their maker, What defense will they use then??? Have a Drink on me John!
4/9/2009 2:19:43 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to serenity8:

Does anyone know anything about the sex offender’s crime? Did it involve a child???
The girl was seventeen and he was charged rape, lack of evidence led to a plea of sexual battery non-consent sex. From what I know about this particular case and now knowing a 17 year old can consent to sex whether they do or not scares me as a parent. I did not know Ohio had a consent set at 17 until this happened and alot of other people probably dont realize that either right now. That is why people in here are worried about children. I can assure you, with this guy your safe and he has learned his lesson. In this day and age a good way to protect yourself having un-marital sex by the way is a sin anyways, you better get a signed and notorized document showing approval first, or you may be next! Not trying to throw in a metaphor to scare you, just saying…it can happen.
4/9/2009 7:16:46 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

gramgi, to answer your question – YES!, all of his friends asked why?, how could you?, he is a reflection upon us, all who grew up together – we beat his ***, he flat out screwed up no matter what his or her motives were that day. We believe in GOD and do not pass judgement on your questions trying to understand, we may ever understand not being there. What I can say is, once again – he’s paid his dues and was moving on and now, an innocent man in your eye’s had a score to settle and got caught will have to pay his. You keep wanting to paint me as someone after law enforcement, you are wrong my friend. What you are right about is when law enforcement do not follow law and order themselves they be held accountable as anyone else would be. All I have said in this case is firing him is the least they can do and an appeal is an outrage knowing the circumstances. Like I said, stay tuned..you wont read everything that went on in the NJ – just watch the Columbus Dispatch!, it’s coming.
4/9/2009 7:34:30 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to serenity8:

I need to clarify that I am not defending John Mayer or the offender. I think they all screwed up. John was ordered to stay away from him, and he chose to disobey that, therefore he should face the consequences. On the other hand, I do not think he should lose his job over it. A bit harsh in my opinion. Perhaps he should have had the offender’s assigned probation officer do something instead of putting his own *ss on the line. Secondly, the offender was not supposed to be around children or be in a relationship involving children, and he disobeyed that. Put his *ss back in prison where he belongs! And also, in my opinion, the ex is not much of a mother to expose her child to a sex offender! Just my opinion…
Dear Serenity, you are believing too much of the paid ad by Mr. Spon – ONLY one person made a mistake and his name is John. The Offener went before the Judge, THERE WERE NO VIOLATIONS TO PROBATION. We are arguing over a one sided story, he wants this!
4/9/2009 7:42:18 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

BitterHappiness – your right, there is more in his file. This is why you see so many negative replies to the judicial system. This was a party with teenagers, a formula for disaster! This is why they (prosecution) had so much, the problem here lies here within a plea agreement, not everyone in public is going to agree with the punishment when they read that, however a plea agreement is made so they (prosecution) gets something for their time, and don’t really have the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury will get a conviction. I believe, in this case – someone like you believed he did not get what he deserved and when his sentence was to expire like so many others in Richland county the ones they feel justice was not served are put under duress hoping they mess up, this one did not and now action must be taken. Same goes for those who believe since he had money to buy his way out, that he did – hence the opinion of corruption in the system, maybe? – we’ll never know.
4/9/2009 8:28:23 AM

BitterHappiness wrote:

Devils_Adv
Please don’t misunderstand me. i’m not out to bash upon your friend. i’m not posting specifics but am finding it appalling how you and others feel the need to run John’s (& his families) name through the mud. He disobeyed a Supervisor according to the newspapers and websites that have reported on this and was dealt with by what his dept felt was a necessary punishment. It’s been brought to attention the mistakes he’s been accused of the night in question that led to his termination from his job. He disobeyed his departmental rules and was dealt with. Please everyone, stop making assumptions that just because yourself, or someone you know has had a run-in with the judicial system, that all law-enforcement, etc are crooked. John as well as others (those reading these posts included) are not perfect nor should anyone claim to be. People like John have done more to help this community and should be reminded of such. His positive contributions more than outweigh the negative!
4/9/2009 8:17:26 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

BitterHappiness – your right, there is more in his file. This is why you see so many negative replies to the judicial system. This was a party with teenagers, a formula for disaster! This is why they (prosecution) had so much, the problem here lies here within a plea agreement, not everyone in public is going to agree with the punishment when they read that, however a plea agreement is made so they (prosecution) gets something for their time, and don’t really have the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury will get a conviction. I believe, in this case – someone like you believed he did not get what he deserved and when his sentence was to expire like so many others in Richland county the ones they feel justice was not served are put under duress hoping they mess up, this one did not and now action must be taken. Same goes for those who believe since he had money to buy his way out, that he did – hence the opinion of corruption in the system, maybe? – we’ll never know.
4/9/2009 8:28:23 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

BitterHappiness – I am not misunderstanding you at all, I agree with you totally. I have had people tell me to back off, I have had posts plucked, and have been told to watch my back. For what, wanting the truth?. I will believe my friend before an attorney any day, in court they are truely the only ones who win. That’s my opinion about some, not all! So spinners dont make it that way like you have with law enforcement and the judicial system, I too believe it’s the best we got and when we do find problems we fix it. In this case I believe the Parole Authority has done that, and it’s time for a new day, and a new begining and we need to move on.
4/9/2009 8:43:29 AM

ragingredneck wrote:

“Spon said Mayer was concerned about his ex-wife’s 8-year-old daughter because the probationer is a sex offender. According to Spon, the man served two years in prison for two counts of sexual battery.”

Well, then why didn’t he do what most of us would do when we think a child is in danger? Call the police!
4/9/2009 9:14:37 AM

ragingredneck wrote:

“Spon said Mayer was concerned about his ex-wife’s 8-year-old daughter because the probationer is a sex offender. According to Spon, the man served two years in prison for two counts of sexual battery.”

Well, then why didn’t he do what most of us would do when we think a child is in danger? Call the police!
4/9/2009 9:14:37 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to ragingredneck:

“Spon said Mayer was concerned about his ex-wife’s 8-year-old daughter because the probationer is a sex offender. According to Spon, the man served two years in prison for two counts of sexual battery.”

Well, then why didn’t he do what most of us would do when we think a child is in danger? Call the police!

 

Using the paper to deflect the charges is all he was doing, it’s an old methodology of how to taint the deeper issues. May I suggest to OLD attorney’s that old school method don’t work in todays technology world, we can find answers quickly and when there’s a blog there’s good chance anyone with a computer is going to see the truth from people bringing it out. Better luck nect time, hope you learned something. It’s gonna be a great day, the suns out, and so am I. Stay tuned, the truth is out there!
4/9/2009 9:53:31 AM

orvil wrote:

Mayer failed to follow a direct order +that was his choice
Mayer was drinking that night +that was his choice.
The law did nothing about John’s drinking and driving+ there in ly’s the problem.

4/9/2009 2:20:54 PM

shoesareit wrote:

I would like to challenge the accuracy of the reporting of this incident. First of all, Jennifer Leech
WAS officially Mr. Mayer’s wife when this relationship with the sex offender began. Second, Mr. Mayer did have direct supervision responsiblilities of the offender when this relationship began. I don’t understand why this information is not being shared more openly and accurately. What would you do if your spouse was engaging in an extramarital affair with a sex offender and a young child is in the home? What would you do if you had professional obligations to protect the community from convicted sex offenders? Sometimes there is more to the story then presented. I hope Richland County residents have learned from the past and realize there is more to the story than the media always presents. John’s only guilt was responding out of love, concern, and desire to protect others from this sex offender repeating his offense. Jennifer is his ex-wife now because of her choices.
4/9/2009 9:10:21 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

shoesareit – That’s a new one!, I will check it’s validity. Is this why her 8 yr old daughter everyone talks about can’t stand him? – That’s a fact not shared either, why is that?
4/9/2009 9:22:23 PM

SlapJack wrote:

maybe cuz its her ex and she’s brainwashed her child to the way she feels
it was a divorce
4/9/2009 9:35:19 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

shoesareit – I had a thought, if this is true – wouldn’t this now be motive and pre-meditated? naaah, because that would be a violation and the judge didn’t give him any. Oh, I suppose the Judge was paid off? Everyone blames the State for the firing of Mr.Mayer, when it was the Judge who sees it the same way. Case closed!
4/9/2009 9:35:36 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Replying to SlapJack:

maybe cuz its her ex and she’s brainwashed her child to the way she feels
it was a divorce

No, this is because she loves her real daddy, and he couldn’t replace him. This was before divorce, so don’t add that bull, cuz.
4/9/2009 9:43:29 PM

SlapJack wrote:

Replying to Devils_Advocate:

Replying to SlapJack:

maybe cuz its her ex and she’s brainwashed her child to the way she feels
it was a divorce

 

No, this is because she loves her real daddy, and he couldn’t replace him. This was before divorce, so don’t add that bull, cuz.
Boy i tell ya. Well i ain’t your cuz BECAUSE my daddy was an only child. Im just glad i got my boots on BE CAUSE theres alotta bull in here already. wasn’t addin any. Just callin it as i see it
4/9/2009 10:10:49 PM

SlapJack wrote:

DevilsAdvocte – i just had a thought. The little girl is 8. Maybe she cant stand school?Doesnt mean its not good forher. And if she cant stand John then why did her mom marry him??? Don’t ya think her kids opinions should matter to her
4/9/2009 10:31:06 PM

simple-1 wrote:

Anyone call Carl Monday yet? The NJ or Dispatch needs to find the courts opinion on this matter? JM and all you say the probationer is so bad then what was the outcome of the violations? I find it kind of amusing that Mr. Spon speaks for all law enforcement< he speaks for the Sheriff, Police Cheif, all the judges. It’s funny that he states all these peolpes feelings> He might know the juvenile Judges feelings because they are brothers but I think it is in their political nature to speak for themselves. I would find it hard to believe they would condone this behavior from one of their employees. Sherriff/Cheifs- you care if your officers pound 4 beers a few hours b 4 work. Judges you care if your PO’s pound 4 beers and then come to court a few hours later? This isn’t about a sex offender like it has been made out to be, it is about a person who lost his head and thaught he could get away with it? Now excuses fly and who’s buying? It’s a shame!
4/9/2009 11:15:53 PM

simple-1 wrote:

Replying to SlapJack:

DevilsAdvocte – i just had a thought. The little girl is 8. Maybe she cant stand school?Doesnt mean its not good forher. And if she cant stand John then why did her mom marry him??? Don’t ya think her kids opinions should matter to her

Hey this isn’t about an 8 yr old girl, ex-wife or sex offender. It is about a person that didnt follow the a directive from his supervisor and put all at risk. Is it b/c he doesnt like taking orders from a black man? Does his own thing with his family behind him? I don’t know! Just asking the question!

4/9/2009 11:36:09 PM

SlapJack wrote:

Replying to simple-1:

Replying to SlapJack:

DevilsAdvocte – i just had a thought. The little girl is 8. Maybe she cant stand school?Doesnt mean its not good forher. And if she cant stand John then why did her mom marry him??? Don’t ya think her kids opinions should matter to her

 

Hey this isn’t about an 8 yr old girl, ex-wife or sex offender. It is about a person that didnt follow the a directive from his supervisor and put all at risk. Is it b/c he doesnt like taking orders from a black man? Does his own thing with his family behind him? I don’t know! Just asking the question!
Hey, i didn’t bring up the little girl, the Devil did it. I was just saying what i thought about what he said. And I dont know what you talkin about the black man and such. Didnt that guy get fired already? Whats the question?
4/9/2009 11:47:36 PM

simple-1 wrote:

Replying to SlapJack:

maybe cuz its her ex and she’s brainwashed her child to the way she feels
it was a divorce

thats what I’m talkin about? Maybe he dont’ like black folk? HMMMMMMMMMM
4/10/2009 12:00:32 AM

SlapJack wrote:

Replying to simple-1:

Replying to SlapJack:

maybe cuz its her ex and she’s brainwashed her child to the way she feels
it was a divorce

thats what I’m talkin about? Maybe he dont’ like black folk? HMMMMMMMMMM
Who’s black? I thought John and his ex and everyone is white? And can you possibly tell me how you’ve managed to bring up race? What does color of the skin have to do with all this? Are you just trying to stir up trouble or confuse us all so we become dumber?
4/10/2009 12:21:54 AM

simple-1 wrote:

I just get tired of hearing the defense attorney’s spin. He intentionally used the word sex offender to get the public on his side> So what people do they feed in with out knowing facts. NJ report facts not spin. So now people bash the ex and mother without knowing the full story. Now they are victimized b/c cause he didn’t let someone else handle it. It would be like asking if JM is a racists? Is he a stalker? Now is this fair to pose these ?, Im sure someone would love to answer. But this is what is has came to by his attorney throwing bull into the story? Deflect the focus of JM and get people thinking bout the girl and the perv. Focus on the issues at hand! Following orders, working after consuming alcohol, obvious conflict of interest ( he shouldnt have any connection to the case what so ever or decisions in the case) and they (state) say 11?
4/10/2009 12:23:51 AM

simple-1 wrote:

Replying to SlapJack:

Replying to simple-1:

Replying to SlapJack:

maybe cuz its her ex and she’s brainwashed her child to the way she feels
it was a divorce

 

thats what I’m talkin about? Maybe he dont’ like black folk? HMMMMMMMMMM


Who’s black? I thought John and his ex and everyone is white? And can you possibly tell me how you’ve managed to bring up race? What does color of the skin have to do with all this? Are you just trying to stir up trouble or confuse us all so we become dumber?

I’ve heard he threw a black reverend out of his office once when the reverend challenged him whether he was lying about person on paper!
4/10/2009 12:32:16 AM

BitterHappiness wrote:

Simple-1
i’m amazed at the degree you still feel the need to attack John Mayer. The papers (both NJ & the Dispatch) referanced the Sex Offender because that is what he is. If he, the ex and everyone else is being vicitimized it’s really no fault of anyone but those who chose to defend them while attacking John in these posts (also, how can you possibly stand in favor of the Sex Offender and call him a perv in the next sentence?) When i first started writing, i expressed how other parties were being brought in that shouldn’t be and this is what the outcome is. You yourself were one of those who felt the need to get more information about his ex from the Devil in some of your pior posts. i feel like a broken record but everyone knows John was fired for his actions. Why still cry of injustice? Once again, what more do you want from him?

4/10/2009 12:43:26 AM

simple-1 wrote:

Bitter:
GO READ! Firstly, the NJ said spon said he was a sex offender! Secondly, the dispatch never said sex offender, i believe it read ex offender. so get it straight before you come at me! I want honest facts!
See it’s not right when people add spin but if you talk to the reverend he’ll tell you what happened.
See I am unbiased looking for thruth and others calling people pervs, when that is not the issue. So if people want to slant others can slant right back. I’m am neithert party’s friend nor will I ever be. But the ex is not the issue here, JM has already wasted enough tax payers dollars and by the ways this looks, probably much more! I don’t wanna work hard and pay for his 11 bad decisions. You see how ugly this can get and the way devil blogs, he is not going away. Tell ur friend JM to drop the appeal and move on for the sake of this community and my fingers. Keep alot of innocent people from being ( both sides)victimized in the media!
4/10/2009 12:58:24 AM

simple-1 wrote:

No reponse bitter! Night! blog with ya later, my fingers hurt!
4/10/2009 1:25:53 AM

BitterHappiness wrote:

Simple1
Not adding spin to anything. i too have been in search of facts and from what i get out of your posts, it isn’t facts you are truly after. You want JM to fall and fall hard (which from what i read in the paper has already happened). Regardless of how it was reported or who said what first, one of the parties that is made out as being victimized (besides the multiple attacks towards John & the rest of the judicial system) is the Sex Offender. Yes that is what he is. The Devil describes him as a good person who made a bad judgement call. The FACT is there were multiple charges against him on multiple dates spanning a year. Appears he made more than a couple bad calls. Illegal drugs was a factor (not just one teenagers party drinking beer) & even if the girl(s?) was 17, the man is still more than twice their age. He’s old enough to be their father! Funny thing is, i never would’ve started researching had those against John not been so adament on making this man appear innocent.
4/10/2009 1:27:04 AM

SlapJack wrote:

“I’ve heard he threw a black reverend out of his office once when the reverend challenged him whether he was lying about person on paper!”

Glad I still got my boots on cuz claimin racism sounds just as ignorant as thinkin an 8 year old kid ain’t influenced by theyre parents opinions and feelings

Sheesh!

4/10/2009 7:22:16 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

simple1 – So now people bash the ex and mother without knowing the full story. Now they are victimized b/c cause he didn’t let someone else handle it.

This is exactly why if she files a civil suit against him she will win, then I would move somewhere nice!, and have a protective order to keep him many, many miles away. I’m working on my book about it, it will include all the blogs and words the attorney uses as fact, and what really happened. The proceeds will go to educating what acts will make you an offender- and how to best avoid it, people who help with the facts to write it, and donations I will make to victims services who have been great in helping those involved in this matter. I will use some of the money to research level1 and level2 sex offenders that are brought back into society to create awareness of all the levels and types to remove the stereotyping and demonizing that does not allow the State Parole Authorities system to work.
4/10/2009 8:37:46 AM

ragingredneck wrote:
shoesareit wrote: “What would you do if your spouse was engaging in an extramarital affair with a sex offender and a young child is in the home? What would you do if you had professional obligations to protect the community from convicted sex offenders?”

Very simple, I wouild have called the police. Pretty simple, huh? I’m sure there would have been a prompt response and we would not have had this gung-ho business that may have ended a career.

Seems to me like it’s her right to associate with whomever she wishes.

If the sex offender business is a problem, that’s a matter for Childrens Services.

He had a “professional obligation” to obey his superiors but, pretty obviously, took a special and personal interest in this case.

Hey, it’s not all out yet and plenty more to be heard, but It appears the man overstepped his authority in what basically was his personal mission to mess things up for two other people.

We’ll see.
4/10/2009 9:07:00 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

BitterHappiness – even if the girl(s?) was 17, the man is still more than twice their age, what’s your point here? Hugh Hefner is with girls young enough to be his grandaughters, and that’s ok – The President of the United States, more that twice Monica’s age. Both of these models are people we look up to in our society, so what’s the point? This perv you call him is a guy who is still in as good a shape as anyone 1/2 his age and has no problem with the ladies, I still believe there is some jealousy when there should be envy. Your just Bitter for a reason, and I was starting to like you.
Here you are acting like this guy made a career out of being bad, here’s some of the gospel; He once swam after a woman after being told she had drowned, brought her to shore and with help of a lieutenant Bailey saved her life, he also drove Miss Ohio in a Mansfield parade a few years prior to this, I will not give her name for some may slant her too! So, he’s not ALL bad.
4/10/2009 9:52:23 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

ragingredneck – that was an intelligent response. As for shoesareit, this person is adding another non-truth since I did investigate like I said I would. I wonder where they got that bull?, he would be in prison with no stop at go. A fax will be going to Columbus tonight, watch the Dispatch! the truth is coming!
4/10/2009 10:36:35 AM

Devils_Advocate wrote:
plastercastered wrote:

Replying to hope99:

hope99, AMEN!!! Somebody follow up about the gun, Carl Monday? Someone? as long as this crook did what he wanted to ,to who he wanted due to his family & job We’d love to see him finally get the prison time he’s deserved for years!.
To all off you who are defending John Mayer and his job, you need to shut up until you know the whole story. John stalked and harrassed his ex-wife and was aloud to get away with it from the MPD because of his position. You dont know how scared her daughter is of John. All of this was hidden by the MPD. What about your missing “state issued” gun John? Many, many facts are being hidden. John not only deserves to be fired, but actually would be in prison if we lived in any other county in the US. Richland county is as dirty as they come!!!

4/10/2009 7:46:54 PM
4/10/2009 11:07:12 PM

Devils_Advocate wrote:

Hope 99 – I don’t know who you are, but you have to be close to know about this – the guns not missing, he knows right where it is and he should have used his head rather than loan it out for protection – are you saying this person still has it?. When this story broke I heard so many things from so many people if any of it was true I thought to myself, this guy is toast if any of it can be proved. After hearing quite a few defending in here saying you can’t prove this or that, I wonder at this point, how do they know what can and can’t be proved? hmmm!
4/10/2009 10:19:24 PM
4/10/2009 11:08:19 PM

http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-515037.html

Facebook Comments
This entry was posted in For those who can't comment on the MNJ site, John Mayer, Local Corruption. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Mansfield Parole Officer (John Mayer) appeals firing.

  1. Eu gostaria de visitar todos os dias, obrigado pela sua partilha.
    ___________________________________________
    http://www.casaemail.com.br

  2. Bom post.
    ___________________________________________
    http://www.kitsucesso.com

  3. Got my first letter yesterday! Loved it. I feel like I’m a component of something terrific that’s just starting to materialize. Feeling a strange perception of community around it all. Maybe you happen to be on to something here! Who would have ever thought that men and women would actually print out words on paper just to have it sent with the mail to another person’s mailbox. Next thing you know, peoe will probably be growing their own food and walking or riding bikes everywhere. It’ll in no way get the job done, damn progress.

  4. So what if some of them hate it? They can learn to examine things and employ critical imagining and say why they dislike something. If any of them go on to college they’re heading to need to browse a lot of stuff they may well not enjoy reading in the sciences, math, history and other topic areas besides literature.

  5. Encontrei um monte de pontos de grande neste trabalho, bom post.
    ___________________________________________
    http://www.kitsucesso.com

Leave a Reply