<html>
<head>
<style>
P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
Schwaller's contention that release by his counselor of Steven Sitler's worrisome activities is a breach of confidentiality begs two questions:<br><br>1. If the counselor can't release information, then what would be the point of counseling as a part and a condition of his release and supervision? and<br><br>2. How dense does Schwaller think we are? <br><br>Could it be that Schwaller's only real expertise in much of anything is remarkably like Doug Wilson's expertise in pretty much everything -- that is, a fancy display of pseudo-academic analysis that, stripped of pomposity and grandeur, is either painfully obvious, painfully convoluted, or just plain wrong?<br><br>keely<br><br><span style="font-style: italic;">"And these women that you spit on as they try to change their worlds/</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Are immune to your consultations . . . they're quite aware of what they're going through"</span><br>(With apologies to David Bowie)<br><br><br>> From: sslund@roadrunner.com<br>> To: deco@moscow.com; vision2020@moscow.com<br>> Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 14:20:10 -0700<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions<br>> <br>> Visionaries:<br>> <br>> In part, Wayne writes:<br>> "However, according to those present at the last hearing, the conference,<br>> telephonic or not, according to the judge, was to be in open court."<br>> <br>> I can confirm this: Judge Stegner made it *crystal* clear that the original<br>> (now rescheduled to Monday at 2 PM) status conference was to be held in open<br>> court with Steven Sitler present whether counsel on both sides appeared<br>> physically or telephonically.<br>> <br>> I'm not at all familiar with the process, so I don't know if there would be<br>> some reason for that to change simply because the status conference was<br>> rescheduled.<br>> <br>> I would certainly hope, though, that no behind the scenes legal wrangling<br>> (for lack of a better term) will be successful at removing this sordid --<br>> and tragic, not to mention imminently important to the safety of our<br>> community's children -- piece of public business from the public eye. My<br>> interpretation of Judge Stegner's comments and demeanor were that he Gets<br>> that this is a big deal, and that he wants a transparent process, IMHO.<br>> <br>> Wayne makes reference to the standard "Idaho Department of Correction Sexual<br>> Offender Agreement of Supervision" Steven Sitler signed in May, which was<br>> before his release (and just recently made it to Sitler's court file). The<br>> provision concerning Internet access is, indeed, item #2 of the agreement.<br>> <br>> Also in the Agreement is another item that might be of interest to the<br>> disingenuous here on the Viz with a vested interest in using this forum to<br>> confuse the issues. Actually, the disingenuous wouldn't want this provision<br>> pointed out, which is why I'll do it ;-) As background, not only is the<br>> entire Agreement signed by Sitler (and his PO), but each and every single<br>> provision of the Agreement is initialed by Sitler himself.<br>> <br>> "15. I agree to sign any Release of Information form that allows my<br>> supervising officer to communicate with professionals involved in my<br>> treatment program."<br>> <br>> I'm very curious about why someone like "Glenn Schwaller," who, by his own<br>> words, has "worked for several months with Mr Sitler and other sex offenders<br>> in our area," would pen something like this last night:<br>> "I will have to look at a copy of the VTS contract, but my guess is that the<br>> defense is going to push for Mr Lombard's letter to be ruled inadmissible<br>> since it violates the patient / counselor privilege."<br>> <br>> Oh, heck . . . I guess I'm not curious at all because I Get It: some here<br>> on the Viz want to cloud and confuse the issue.<br>> <br>> <br>> Saundra Lund<br>> Moscow, ID<br>> <br>> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do<br>> nothing.<br>> - Edmund Burke<br>> <br>> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2007 through life plus<br>> 70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside<br>> the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the<br>> author.*****<br>> <br>> <br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com]<br>> On Behalf Of Art Deco<br>> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:09 PM<br>> To: Vision 2020<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions<br>> <br>> It may be a telephonic conference. However, according to those present at<br>> the last hearing, the conference, telephonic or not, according to the judge,<br>> was to be in open court. <br>> <br>> The last thing we need in this case is more concealment. There needs to be<br>> public outrage, concern, and action to reduce the incidents of all child<br>> abuse, sexual or not. Exposure and frank discussion in the community can<br>> help. Without such discussion the status quo will continue.<br>> <br>> The points in the post below about the internet connection are crucial.<br>> Communications among several people occurring just after Sitler's initial<br>> release focused on whether he had internet access and how this was to be<br>> monitored. Needless to say, the amount of material of interest to a<br>> pedophile is not hard to find on the internet, even in the wake of last<br>> week's massive global arrests.<br>> <br>> The conditions of probation agreed to in court as part of the plea/probation<br>> agreements (available at http://www.tomandrodna.com/CR_2005_02027/) do not<br>> mention the internet at all. This, in my opinion, is another example of the<br>> unforgivable ineptitude, laxity, ill-concern for the public safety exhibited<br>> by the prosecutor, whose job is to represent the state, not the defendant,<br>> and the court in this case. This conditions document is mostly boilerplate.<br>> Not only ineptitude, but laziness.<br>> <br>> However, Probation and Parole was more thorough. Condition 2 of the Idaho<br>> Department of Correction Sexual Offender Agreement of Supervision initialed<br>> by Sitler states:<br>> <br>> "I will not subscribe to, use nor have access to internet service, including<br>> e-mail or any other internet material without permission from my therapist<br>> and probation officer. I will not use any form of password-protected files,<br>> or other methods that might limited access to, or change the appearance of<br>> data images or other computer files without written prior approval from my<br>> supervising officer."<br>> <br>> <br>> In this context, most of the tracks left on a computer from internet surfing<br>> can be erased by programs such as Windows Washer. I hope that language can<br>> be added to the above condition in the future by Probation and Parole to<br>> disallow the presence on a subject's computer of such programs.<br>> <br>> <br>> In the future, probably in September or October, I hope to place and keep<br>> updated a click and show map for Moscow and Latah County on the internet<br>> showing the locations of all sexual offenders who have violated children or<br>> have exhibited violent or predatory behavior. Since I am old and have many<br>> other projects going, this may take a while to do correctly.<br>> <br>> W.<br>> <br>> <br>> ----- Original Message ----- <br>> From: Glenn Schwaller <mailto:vpschwaller@gmail.com> <br>> To: vision2020@moscow.com <br>> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:33 AM<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions<br>> <br>> There are additional probation violations that have been filed and may have<br>> something to do with the sealed communication. Given that the contents of<br>> this letter will probably not be released in the near future, at the very<br>> least the court should give some kind of explanation as to why this letter<br>> was sealed.<br>> <br>> Probation and parole seized a computer during the search of Mr Sitler's<br>> residence, and it's contents are currently being evaluated by the State<br>> Forensics Lab in Meridian. Questions 11 adn 12 would be why did Mr Sitler<br>> have a computer, and did he have access to the internet? <br>> <br>> Ownership of, or access to, a computer and / or the internet is decided on a<br>> case-by-case basis. For some offenders, use of a computer my be permitted<br>> only if it is a necessary part of their employment. Other may be allowed a<br>> home computer only, and others may be allowed internet access. In these<br>> instances, most offenders are required to subscribe at their cost to a<br>> program called Covenant Eyes (www.covenanteyes.com). Their probation<br>> officer functions as an "accountability partner" and as such, has complete<br>> and real time access to their computer.<br>> <br>> Was Mr Sitler on line while on probation? Was he required to subscribe to a<br>> monitoring service? Did he subscribe? Does any of his computer activity<br>> relate to additional probation violations? It seems a very real possibility<br>> that one or several people dropped the ball on this. Will anyone be held<br>> accountable?<br>> <br>> It's possible that the Status Conference scheduled for Monday may be a phone<br>> conference, and not in open court. Has anyone heard differently?<br>> <br>> Glenn<br>> <br>> <br>> On 6/29/07, Art Deco <deco@moscow.com> wrote: <br>> <br>> Here is a letter from one of the persons providing sexual offender<br>> treatment to Steven Sitler. This letter is found as part of a Report of<br>> Probation Violation filed in the court by Senior Probation Officer Jackye<br>> Squires Leonard.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Dalton Lombard, D.Min, LCPC<br>> <br>> P O Box 1911<br>> <br>> Lewiston, Id. 83501<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> June 18, 2007<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Jackie Squires<br>> <br>> Probation and Parole<br>> <br>> Moscow Idaho 83843<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> RE. Steven Shier<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Dear Ms. Squires,<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> This note is in response lo our Telephone conversation today. During<br>> the weekly check in time for the offender group I lead for Valley Treatment<br>> Specialties Mr. Sitler reported that he had masturbated on two occasions<br>> during the previous week. When asked for more detail about the circumstances<br>> and fantasies he experienced during his masturbation he reported that he had<br>> been looking in a neighbor's window with his binoculars. As a result he<br>> became aroused and later masturbated. He denied viewing anyone at the<br>> residence but acknowledged that he was aroused by looking in the window. He<br>> stated to the group that voyeurism is one of the behaviors be engaged in<br>> prior to and leading up to the offences he was convicted of.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> I consider this to be a very high risk behavior for Mr. Sitler<br>> considering he had been out of jail less than a month at the lime he<br>> reported the behavior. In my mind this behavior constitutes a violation of<br>> his parole and of his treatment contract with Valley Treatment Specialties.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Thank you for your consideration in this matter.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> /s/<br>> <br>> Dalton Lombard<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> The contents of this letter and other events raise some questions.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> First, with respect to the binoculars:<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> 1. When did Sitler acquire the binoculars?<br>> <br>> 2. Did he previously possess them and someone returned them to<br>> him, did he lately acquire them, or did someone lately acquire them for him?<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Given his history of voyeurism and its leading up pedophilic<br>> incidents:<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> 3. What was his motivation for either acquiring or keeping the<br>> binoculars?<br>> <br>> 4. Shouldn't the possession of binoculars been a no-no in his<br>> probation agreement?<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Second, considering the comment "I consider this to be a very high<br>> risk behavior for Mr. Sitler" from his therapist:<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> 5. Why was bail granted at all?<br>> <br>> 6. Is he not a high risk to reoffend?<br>> <br>> 7. Why hasn't a Motion to Revoke Probation been filed by the<br>> prosecuting attorney so that an evidentiary hearing can be held and a<br>> decision whether to revoke probation or not be made by the court?<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> There is a new letter from Dr. Lombard to Judge Stegner now in the<br>> file:<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> 8. Why has this letter been sealed?<br>> <br>> 9. Aren't the citizens whose children who are now at risk with<br>> Sitler out on probation entitled to the information which would allow them<br>> to:<br>> <br>> a. Evaluate the risk?<br>> <br>> b. Express their opinions to the prosecutor, media, etc.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Sitler was ordered by the court to vacate his current residence on<br>> June 19, 2007. Today is June 29, 2007. The screen snapshot just below was<br>> taken at 7:30 pm today (06/29/07).<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> According to the Idaho Central Sexual Offender Website<br>> http://www.isp.state.id.us/identification/sex_offender/obligations.html<br>> Sitler is obligated to:<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Within 2 working days of changing the address or location of<br>> residence within the county where the sex offender is registered, the<br>> offender must complete an address change form in person with the sheriff of<br>> that county of the change.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> OR<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Within 5 working days of moving to another state, the registered sex<br>> offender must provide written notice of the move to the central sex offender<br>> registry. The person must also register in the other State within the time<br>> period required by that State, but not to exceed 10 days.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> 10. Has Sitler complied with the above but for administrative<br>> ineptitude his State of Idaho sexual offender profile has not yet been<br>> updated?<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> As of now, a status hearing on this matter is scheduled for Monday,<br>> July 2nd at 2:00 pm. Since schedules can change, those interested should<br>> call the Clerk of the Court's office early Monday to check for any change<br>> (Courthouse: 882-8580).<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Wayne A. Fox<br>> 1009 Karen Lane<br>> PO Box 9421<br>> Moscow, ID 83843<br>> <br>> (208) 882-7975<br>> waf@moscow.com<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> =======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> http://www.fsr.net<br>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> ======================================================= <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> ________________________________<br>> <br>> =======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br>> http://www.fsr.net <br>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> ======================================================= <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> =======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br>> http://www.fsr.net <br>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> =======================================================<br><br /><hr />Make every IM count. Download Windows Live Messenger and join the i’m Initiative now. It’s free. <a href='http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGWL_June07' target='_new'>Make it count!</a></body>
</html>