[Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions
J Ford
privatejf32 at hotmail.com
Sun Jul 1 16:13:23 PDT 2007
According to State, Federal and even City laws, if anyone like a doctor,
teacher, counselor, etc. even suspects a client, student, patient, etc. or
the said person even exhibits either through speech, action, writings, etc.
the hint of harm to self or others, they are obligated to report it to the
proper authorities IMMEDIATELY. If they fail to do so, they could be held
legally and criminally responsible for not doing so and could be sued by
those offended or victimized by the perp.
That's been the case for since the 1980's or late '70's, I believe.
J :]
>From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
>To: "'Saundra Lund'" <sslund at roadrunner.com>, "'Art Deco'"
><deco at moscow.com>, "'Vision 2020'" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions
>Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 14:43:47 -0700
>
>Question: Does the patient/counselor privilege ethically, and/or legally,
>prevent the disclosure of information if that information relates to a
>clear
>probation violation on the part of the patient? If so, could the counselor
>be guilty (or complicit, at a minimum) of obstruction of justice?
>
>Things that make you go "Hmmm."
>
>Seeya round town, Moscow.
>
>Tom Hansen
>Moscow, Idaho
>
>"We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college
>students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."
>
>- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
>On Behalf Of Saundra Lund
>Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 2:20 PM
>To: 'Art Deco'; 'Vision 2020'
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions
>
>Visionaries:
>
>In part, Wayne writes:
>"However, according to those present at the last hearing, the conference,
>telephonic or not, according to the judge, was to be in open court."
>
>I can confirm this: Judge Stegner made it *crystal* clear that the
>original
>(now rescheduled to Monday at 2 PM) status conference was to be held in
>open
>court with Steven Sitler present whether counsel on both sides appeared
>physically or telephonically.
>
>I'm not at all familiar with the process, so I don't know if there would be
>some reason for that to change simply because the status conference was
>rescheduled.
>
>I would certainly hope, though, that no behind the scenes legal wrangling
>(for lack of a better term) will be successful at removing this sordid --
>and tragic, not to mention imminently important to the safety of our
>community's children -- piece of public business from the public eye. My
>interpretation of Judge Stegner's comments and demeanor were that he Gets
>that this is a big deal, and that he wants a transparent process, IMHO.
>
>Wayne makes reference to the standard "Idaho Department of Correction
>Sexual
>Offender Agreement of Supervision" Steven Sitler signed in May, which was
>before his release (and just recently made it to Sitler's court file). The
>provision concerning Internet access is, indeed, item #2 of the agreement.
>
>Also in the Agreement is another item that might be of interest to the
>disingenuous here on the Viz with a vested interest in using this forum to
>confuse the issues. Actually, the disingenuous wouldn't want this
>provision
>pointed out, which is why I'll do it ;-) As background, not only is the
>entire Agreement signed by Sitler (and his PO), but each and every single
>provision of the Agreement is initialed by Sitler himself.
>
>"15. I agree to sign any Release of Information form that allows my
>supervising officer to communicate with professionals involved in my
>treatment program."
>
>I'm very curious about why someone like "Glenn Schwaller," who, by his own
>words, has "worked for several months with Mr Sitler and other sex
>offenders
>in our area," would pen something like this last night:
>"I will have to look at a copy of the VTS contract, but my guess is that
>the
>defense is going to push for Mr Lombard's letter to be ruled inadmissible
>since it violates the patient / counselor privilege."
>
>Oh, heck . . . I guess I'm not curious at all because I Get It: some here
>on the Viz want to cloud and confuse the issue.
>
>
>Saundra Lund
>Moscow, ID
>
>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
>nothing.
>- Edmund Burke
>
>***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2007 through life
>plus
>70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce
>outside
>the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
>author.*****
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
>On Behalf Of Art Deco
>Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:09 PM
>To: Vision 2020
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions
>
>It may be a telephonic conference. However, according to those present at
>the last hearing, the conference, telephonic or not, according to the
>judge,
>was to be in open court.
>
>The last thing we need in this case is more concealment. There needs to be
>public outrage, concern, and action to reduce the incidents of all child
>abuse, sexual or not. Exposure and frank discussion in the community can
>help. Without such discussion the status quo will continue.
>
>The points in the post below about the internet connection are crucial.
>Communications among several people occurring just after Sitler's initial
>release focused on whether he had internet access and how this was to be
>monitored. Needless to say, the amount of material of interest to a
>pedophile is not hard to find on the internet, even in the wake of last
>week's massive global arrests.
>
>The conditions of probation agreed to in court as part of the
>plea/probation
>agreements (available at http://www.tomandrodna.com/CR_2005_02027/) do not
>mention the internet at all. This, in my opinion, is another example of
>the
>unforgivable ineptitude, laxity, ill-concern for the public safety
>exhibited
>by the prosecutor, whose job is to represent the state, not the defendant,
>and the court in this case. This conditions document is mostly boilerplate.
>Not only ineptitude, but laziness.
>
>However, Probation and Parole was more thorough. Condition 2 of the Idaho
>Department of Correction Sexual Offender Agreement of Supervision initialed
>by Sitler states:
>
>"I will not subscribe to, use nor have access to internet service,
>including
>e-mail or any other internet material without permission from my therapist
>and probation officer. I will not use any form of password-protected
>files,
>or other methods that might limited access to, or change the appearance of
>data images or other computer files without written prior approval from my
>supervising officer."
>
>
>In this context, most of the tracks left on a computer from internet
>surfing
>can be erased by programs such as Windows Washer. I hope that language can
>be added to the above condition in the future by Probation and Parole to
>disallow the presence on a subject's computer of such programs.
>
>
>In the future, probably in September or October, I hope to place and keep
>updated a click and show map for Moscow and Latah County on the internet
>showing the locations of all sexual offenders who have violated children or
>have exhibited violent or predatory behavior. Since I am old and have many
>other projects going, this may take a while to do correctly.
>
>W.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Glenn Schwaller <mailto:vpschwaller at gmail.com>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:33 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions
>
>There are additional probation violations that have been filed and may have
>something to do with the sealed communication. Given that the contents of
>this letter will probably not be released in the near future, at the very
>least the court should give some kind of explanation as to why this letter
>was sealed.
>
>Probation and parole seized a computer during the search of Mr Sitler's
>residence, and it's contents are currently being evaluated by the State
>Forensics Lab in Meridian. Questions 11 adn 12 would be why did Mr Sitler
>have a computer, and did he have access to the internet?
>
>Ownership of, or access to, a computer and / or the internet is decided on
>a
>case-by-case basis. For some offenders, use of a computer my be permitted
>only if it is a necessary part of their employment. Other may be allowed a
>home computer only, and others may be allowed internet access. In these
>instances, most offenders are required to subscribe at their cost to a
>program called Covenant Eyes (www.covenanteyes.com). Their probation
>officer functions as an "accountability partner" and as such, has complete
>and real time access to their computer.
>
>Was Mr Sitler on line while on probation? Was he required to subscribe to
>a
>monitoring service? Did he subscribe? Does any of his computer activity
>relate to additional probation violations? It seems a very real
>possibility
>that one or several people dropped the ball on this. Will anyone be held
>accountable?
>
>It's possible that the Status Conference scheduled for Monday may be a
>phone
>conference, and not in open court. Has anyone heard differently?
>
>Glenn
>
>
>On 6/29/07, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> Here is a letter from one of the persons providing sexual offender
>treatment to Steven Sitler. This letter is found as part of a Report of
>Probation Violation filed in the court by Senior Probation Officer Jackye
>Squires Leonard.
>
>
>
> Dalton Lombard, D.Min, LCPC
>
> P O Box 1911
>
> Lewiston, Id. 83501
>
>
>
> June 18, 2007
>
>
>
>
>
> Jackie Squires
>
> Probation and Parole
>
> Moscow Idaho 83843
>
>
>
> RE. Steven Shier
>
>
>
> Dear Ms. Squires,
>
>
>
> This note is in response lo our Telephone conversation today. During
>the weekly check in time for the offender group I lead for Valley Treatment
>Specialties Mr. Sitler reported that he had masturbated on two occasions
>during the previous week. When asked for more detail about the
>circumstances
>and fantasies he experienced during his masturbation he reported that he
>had
>been looking in a neighbor's window with his binoculars. As a result he
>became aroused and later masturbated. He denied viewing anyone at the
>residence but acknowledged that he was aroused by looking in the window. He
>stated to the group that voyeurism is one of the behaviors be engaged in
>prior to and leading up to the offences he was convicted of.
>
>
>
> I consider this to be a very high risk behavior for Mr. Sitler
>considering he had been out of jail less than a month at the lime he
>reported the behavior. In my mind this behavior constitutes a violation of
>his parole and of his treatment contract with Valley Treatment Specialties.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
>
>
>
> /s/
>
> Dalton Lombard
>
>
>
>
>
> The contents of this letter and other events raise some questions.
>
>
>
> First, with respect to the binoculars:
>
>
>
> 1. When did Sitler acquire the binoculars?
>
> 2. Did he previously possess them and someone returned them to
>him, did he lately acquire them, or did someone lately acquire them for
>him?
>
>
>
> Given his history of voyeurism and its leading up pedophilic
>incidents:
>
>
>
> 3. What was his motivation for either acquiring or keeping the
>binoculars?
>
> 4. Shouldn't the possession of binoculars been a no-no in his
>probation agreement?
>
>
>
>
>
> Second, considering the comment "I consider this to be a very high
>risk behavior for Mr. Sitler" from his therapist:
>
>
>
> 5. Why was bail granted at all?
>
> 6. Is he not a high risk to reoffend?
>
> 7. Why hasn't a Motion to Revoke Probation been filed by the
>prosecuting attorney so that an evidentiary hearing can be held and a
>decision whether to revoke probation or not be made by the court?
>
>
>
>
>
> There is a new letter from Dr. Lombard to Judge Stegner now in the
>file:
>
>
>
> 8. Why has this letter been sealed?
>
> 9. Aren't the citizens whose children who are now at risk with
>Sitler out on probation entitled to the information which would allow them
>to:
>
> a. Evaluate the risk?
>
> b. Express their opinions to the prosecutor, media, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sitler was ordered by the court to vacate his current residence on
>June 19, 2007. Today is June 29, 2007. The screen snapshot just below was
>taken at 7:30 pm today (06/29/07).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> According to the Idaho Central Sexual Offender Website
>http://www.isp.state.id.us/identification/sex_offender/obligations.html
>Sitler is obligated to:
>
>
>
> Within 2 working days of changing the address or location of
>residence within the county where the sex offender is registered, the
>offender must complete an address change form in person with the sheriff of
>that county of the change.
>
>
>
> OR
>
>
>
> Within 5 working days of moving to another state, the registered sex
>offender must provide written notice of the move to the central sex
>offender
>registry. The person must also register in the other State within the time
>period required by that State, but not to exceed 10 days.
>
>
>
> 10. Has Sitler complied with the above but for administrative
>ineptitude his State of Idaho sexual offender profile has not yet been
>updated?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As of now, a status hearing on this matter is scheduled for Monday,
>July 2nd at 2:00 pm. Since schedules can change, those interested should
>call the Clerk of the Court's office early Monday to check for any change
>(Courthouse: 882-8580).
>
>
>
> Wayne A. Fox
> 1009 Karen Lane
> PO Box 9421
> Moscow, ID 83843
>
> (208) 882-7975
> waf at moscow.com
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
>
>
>=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
>
>
>
>=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
_________________________________________________________________
Who's that on the Red Carpet? Play & win glamorous prizes.
http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=REDCARPET_hotmailtextlink3
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list