[Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions

[Art Deco]

Saundra,

On the need for sunshine:  I hope that in this case more of the file is not 
sealed -- there is no longer a victim to protect in these proceedings unless 
there has been a reoffense.  I also hope that some kind of gag order is not 
issued.

W.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund at roadrunner.com>
To: "'Art Deco'" <deco at moscow.com>; "'Vision 2020'" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 2:20 PM
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
> =======================================================
>
>
>