<div>Tom,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is my understanding, counselors are required by law to disclose certain crimes to authorities. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Janesta<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/1/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Tom Hansen</b> <<a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Question: Does the patient/counselor privilege ethically, and/or legally,<br>prevent the disclosure of information if that information relates to a clear
<br>probation violation on the part of the patient? If so, could the counselor<br>be guilty (or complicit, at a minimum) of obstruction of justice?<br><br>Things that make you go "Hmmm."<br><br>Seeya round town, Moscow.
<br><br>Tom Hansen<br>Moscow, Idaho<br><br>"We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college<br>students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."<br><br>- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)
<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</a>]<br>On Behalf Of Saundra Lund
<br>Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 2:20 PM<br>To: 'Art Deco'; 'Vision 2020'<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: <a href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com
</a>]<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
<a href="http://www.tomandrodna.com/CR_2005_02027/">http://www.tomandrodna.com/CR_2005_02027/</a>) 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:<a href="mailto:vpschwaller@gmail.com">vpschwaller@gmail.com</a>><br>To: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com
</a><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 (<a href="http://www.covenanteyes.com">
www.covenanteyes.com</a>). 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 <
<a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</a>> 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><a href="http://www.isp.state.id.us/identification/sex_offender/obligations.html">http://www.isp.state.id.us/identification/sex_offender/obligations.html</a><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> <a href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com
</a><br><br><br><br> =======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><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>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br><br><br><br>=======================================================
<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">
Vision2020@moscow.com</a><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> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote>
</div><br>