[Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions

Glenn Schwaller vpschwaller at gmail.com
Sat Jun 30 17:00:21 PDT 2007 

Well Jackie, not to keep on haranguing you about it, but it would certainly
pay you to THINK before pummeling your keyboard to death.  It seems pretty
obvious to me that since I am not, nor have any control over, the judge, the
prosecuting attorney, the police, nor the department of probation and
parole, it's highly unlikely I would have answers to those questions, much
less be in a position to make or enforce any probationary restrictions.

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.  Most of these types of
contracts forbid breaking confidentiality unless the patient poses a direct
harm to himself or to others.  Since Mr Sitler admits voyeuristic behavior
led up to the offences of which he was convicted, this could be construed as
a potential harm to others.

If the judge feels otherwise, the letter may be thrown out.  If that is the
case, and the letter was used as probable cause for a search of his
residence, the search, the seizing of his computer and whatever it may
contain in the way of incriminating evidence may be ruled invalid.

Glenn

On 6/30/07, J Ford <privatejf32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Since this "guy" has set his-self up as some kind of expert on Sitler,
> (remember? he says he's been "counseling" Sitler!) how is it he has these
> type of questions, but not the answers?
>
>
> J  :]
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Glenn Schwaller" <vpschwaller at gmail.com>
> >To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions
> >Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:33:21 -0700
> >
> >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
> >>=======================================================
> >>
> ><< SNAGHTML290295b.PNG >>
>
>
> >=======================================================
> >  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
> >=======================================================
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN
> http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070630/3a491281/attachment-0001.html

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list