<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>That is not what the statute says.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=godshatter@yahoo.com href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">Paul
Rumelhart</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, June 21, 2010 11:54
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Sentence
Appropriate?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>The difference is that hiring someone to kill somebody is
illegal no <BR>matter who it is you are hiring. Enticing someone for sex
is not <BR>illegal if the person you are enticing is an adult. It's not
your <BR>belief that the undercover cop is a hit man that condemns you, it's
<BR>paying them to kill somebody.<BR><BR>Paul<BR><BR>Art Deco wrote:<BR>>
So what if X negotiates with Y "thinking" he/she is a gun for hire to <BR>>
off Z.<BR>> <BR>> Y is not an actual gun for hire just as the
undercover agent in the <BR>> Heustis case was not a real 13
year-old.<BR>> <BR>> What's the difference?<BR>> <BR>>
W.<BR>><BR>> ----- Original Message
-----<BR>> *From:* Paul Rumelhart <<A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com</A>><BR>>
*To:* Art Deco <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">mailto:deco@moscow.com</A>><BR>>
*Cc:* Vision 2020 <<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>>
*Sent:* Sunday, June 20, 2010 10:06 PM<BR>>
*Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Sentence
Appropriate?<BR>><BR>><BR>> My reading
comprehension is fine, thank you for your
concern.<BR>><BR>> I'm not discussing this case
anymore, I've moved on to discussing<BR>>
this<BR>> particular law. I realize he
pleaded guilty, blah, blah, blah. I<BR>>
don't<BR>> know enough about the particulars of the
case to be able to say<BR>> one
way<BR>> or the other if the sentence was
just. But this law as it stands<BR>>
sounds<BR>> to me like thought crime. I'm
against thought crime especially when<BR>> it's
made it into our current laws.<BR>><BR>> If they
were eavesdropping (legally) on a conversation between
a<BR>> minor<BR>> and an
adult, then I could see it. But if there was no actual
person<BR>> involved who was under the age of 16
then no law should have been<BR>> broken.
Compare this to an undercover cop selling drugs to
the<BR>> person. <BR>>
Buying certain drugs is illegal whether or not you buy them from
an<BR>> adult or a child, or a policeman or a
citizen. "Enticing" an<BR>> adult
is<BR>> not a crime, so they went and made it one
based on the belief of the<BR>> person doing the
enticing so they could perform just these kinds
of<BR>> sting
operations.<BR>><BR>> That's thought crime, and
I don't like it. Just because it's a<BR>> law
does<BR>> not make it
right.<BR>><BR>>
Paul<BR>><BR>> Art Deco
wrote:<BR>> > Perhaps you missed this two
times:<BR>> > <BR>>
> "A Moscow man who *pleaded guilty* to enticing a child over
the<BR>> >
Internet..."<BR>> >
<BR>> > "Kendall W. Heustis, 40, *pleaded
guilty* to the charge in Latah<BR>> > County
District Court in mid-April."<BR>> >
<BR>> > '"It's been a long two years," Heustis
said. "I've learned a lot<BR>>
from<BR>> > it. *A lot of things happened
because of what I did on the<BR>>
computer*,<BR>> > and I'm paying the price for
it."'<BR>> > <BR>>
> 18-1509A.Enticing of children over the internet -- Penalties
--<BR>> > Jurisdiction. (1) A person aged
eighteen (18) years or older<BR>> shall
be<BR>> > guilty of a felony if he or she
knowingly uses the internet to<BR>> > solicit,
seduce, lure, persuade or entice by words or actions,
or<BR>> > both, a minor child under the age of
sixteen (16) years *or a<BR>>
person<BR>> > the defendant believes to be a
minor child under the age of sixteen<BR>> > (16)
years* to engage in any sexual act with or against the
child<BR>> > where such act is a violation of
chapter 15, 61 or 66, title 18<BR>> > <<A
href="http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18.htm">http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18.htm</A>>,
Idaho<BR>> Code.<BR>>
> <BR>> > There was no claim by Heustis that
he thought other than he was<BR>> >
communicating with a 13 year old child. He pled guilty,
meeting<BR>> the<BR>>
> elements of I.C. 18-1509A (1).<BR>> >
<BR>> > <BR>> >
W.<BR>> ><BR>>
> ----- Original Message
-----<BR>> > *From:*
Paul Rumelhart <<A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com</A>><BR>>
> *To:* Art Deco <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">mailto:deco@moscow.com</A>><BR>>
> *Cc:* Vision 2020 <<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>>
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 20, 2010 9:30
PM<BR>> > *Subject:* Re:
[Vision2020] Sentence Appropriate?<BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>>
> The question of the legality of this defense in
this case aside,<BR>> >
how is<BR>> > this not
thought crime? If the defendant claimed
that<BR>> they did
not<BR>> > believe that
the person they were corresponding with was<BR>>
really a<BR>> > 13-year
old girl but decided to "go along with it" for
the<BR>> excitement<BR>>
> such a fantasy might give him, how would they be
able to<BR>>
determine<BR>> >
otherwise?<BR>>
><BR>> >
Paul<BR>> ><BR>>
> Art Deco wrote:<BR>>
> > "A Moscow man who *pleaded guilty* to
enticing a child<BR>> over
the<BR>> > >
Internet..."<BR>> >
><BR>> > > Heustis
was represented by Chuck Kovis, a very able<BR>>
trial/defense<BR>> >
> attorney. If the argument you presented given the
evidence<BR>> >
presented<BR>> > > at
court really raised a reasonable doubt, it is
highly<BR>>
probable<BR>> >
that<BR>> > > Kovis
would have earned a not guilty plea.<BR>>
> ><BR>>
> > Here is the
statute:<BR>> >
><BR>> > >
18-1509A.Enticing of children over the internet
--<BR>> Penalties
--<BR>> > >
Jurisdiction. (1) A person aged eighteen (18) years or
older<BR>> > shall
be<BR>> > > guilty of
a felony if he or she knowingly uses the internet
to<BR>> > > solicit,
seduce, lure, persuade or entice by words or<BR>>
actions, or<BR>> > >
both, a minor child under the age of sixteen (16) years *or
a<BR>> >
person<BR>> > > the
defendant believes to be a minor child under the
age<BR>> of sixteen<BR>>
> > (16) years* to engage in any sexual act with
or against<BR>> the
child<BR>> > > where
such act is a violation of chapter 15, 61 or
66,<BR>> title 18<BR>>
> > <<A
href="http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18.htm">http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18.htm</A>>,<BR>>
Idaho<BR>> >
Code.<BR>> > >
(2) Every person who is convicted of a violation of
this<BR>> section<BR>>
> > shall be punished by imprisonment in the
state prison for a<BR>>
> period not<BR>>
> > to exceed fifteen (15)
years.<BR>> > >
(3) It shall not constitute a defense against any charge
or<BR>> >
violation<BR>> > > of
this section that a law enforcement officer,
peace<BR>> officer,
or<BR>> > > other
person working at the direction of law enforcement
was<BR>> >
involved<BR>> > > in
the detection or investigation of a violation of
this<BR>> section.<BR>>
> > (4) The offense is committed in the
state of Idaho for<BR>> purposes
of<BR>> > >
determining jurisdiction if the transmission
that<BR>> constitutes
the<BR>> > > offense
either originates in or is received in the
state<BR>> of
Idaho.<BR>> >
><BR>> >
><BR>> > > I think
this matter of virtuality has been before an
appellate<BR>> >
court<BR>> > > before
and has withstood a challenge.<BR>>
> ><BR>>
> > Notice in my comment I said "attempting to
entice a<BR>> *virtual
*13<BR>> > > year-old
girl"<BR>> >
><BR>> > >
W.<BR>> >
><BR>> >
> ----- Original Message
-----<BR>> >
> *From:* Paul Rumelhart <<A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com</A>><BR>>
> > *To:* Art Deco
<<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">mailto:deco@moscow.com</A>><BR>>
> > *Cc:* Vision 2020
<<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>>
> > *Sent:* Sunday, June
20, 2010 5:35 PM<BR>> >
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Sentence
Appropriate?<BR>> >
><BR>> >
><BR>> >
> I don't know what to think about this. If
"enticing a<BR>>
child"<BR>> >
> means that<BR>>
> > he was setting up a
time and place to have sex with a<BR>> person
he<BR>> >
> thought<BR>>
> > was 13, then I'm
glad they caught him. But there is an<BR>>
> interesting<BR>>
> > twist to this,
though. What he was charged with<BR>> doesn't
sound<BR>> >
> like it<BR>>
> > would be a crime if
there was no minor involved. <BR>> Since
there<BR>> >
> wasn't an<BR>>
> > actual minor
involved, then this means that they are<BR>>
> charging him for<BR>>
> > thinking that there
was a 13-year old on the other end<BR>> of
the<BR>> >
> wire. Did<BR>>
> > they just cross over
into thought crime territory? I<BR>>
don't<BR>> >
know.<BR>> >
> Did<BR>>
> > he really believe
she was 13? People lie about their age<BR>>
> and gender<BR>>
> > online all the
time. What if he thought he or she was<BR>>
someone<BR>> >
> pretending to be 13 and that thought excited
him? Does<BR>> >
"enticing a<BR>> >
> child" cover other aspects that don't involve
actual<BR>> > meetings
for<BR>> >
> sex?<BR>>
> > In other words, were
they just "talking dirty" to each<BR>>
other?<BR>> >
><BR>> >
> Anyway, I just thought that was an interesting
aspect<BR>> of this<BR>>
> > case.
You<BR>> >
> guys can go back to bashing Judge Stegner
now.<BR>> >
><BR>> >
> Paul<BR>>
> ><BR>>
> > Art Deco
wrote:<BR>> >
> > When are we going to get a district court
judge that<BR>>
takes<BR>> >
sexual<BR>> >
> > crimes against children seriously enough to
give<BR>> sentences<BR>>
> that<BR>>
> > > promote
deterrence and demonstrates to the community<BR>>
that<BR>> >
sexual<BR>> >
> > crimes against children are not to be
tolerated?<BR>> >
> ><BR>>
> > > Thirty days
soft jail time and five years of basically<BR>>
> meaningless<BR>>
> > > probation is
hardly an appropriate sentence for<BR>> attempting
to<BR>> >
> entice a<BR>>
> > > virtual 13
year-old girl into a sexual encounter.<BR>>
> >
><BR>> >
> > Who is the greater threat to the well being
of the<BR>> >
community? A<BR>>
> > > single offense
offender or a judge that gives many<BR>>
lenient<BR>> >
> sentences?<BR>>
> >
><BR>> >
> > Wayne A. Fox<BR>>
> > > 1009 Karen
Lane<BR>> >
> > PO Box 9421<BR>>
> > > Moscow,
ID 83843<BR>> >
> ><BR>>
> > > <A
href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A> <<A
href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">mailto:waf@moscow.com</A>><BR>>
<<A
href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">mailto:waf@moscow.com</A>><BR>>
> <<A
href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">mailto:waf@moscow.com</A>> <<A
href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">mailto:waf@moscow.com</A>><BR>>
> > > 208
882-7975<BR>> >
> ><BR>>
> >
><BR>> >
> > Man gets jail time in Internet
crime case<BR>> >
> ><BR>>
> >
><BR>> >
> > Heustis
sentenced to five years probation, 30 days<BR>>
> in jail<BR>>
> >
><BR>> >
> > By Christina Lords Daily News staff
writer<BR>> >
> ><BR>>
> > > Posted on:
Saturday, June 19, 2010<BR>>
> >
><BR>> >
> > A Moscow man who pleaded guilty to enticing
a child<BR>> over
the<BR>> >
> Internet<BR>>
> > > was sentenced
by 2nd District Court Judge John<BR>> Stegner to
30<BR>> >
> days in<BR>>
> > > jail and five
years probation Friday.<BR>>
> >
><BR>> >
> > Kendall W. Heustis, 40, pleaded guilty to
the charge<BR>> in
Latah<BR>> >
> County<BR>>
> > > District Court
in mid-April.<BR>> >
> ><BR>>
> > > He faced a
maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a<BR>>
> fine of<BR>>
> >
$50,000.<BR>> >
> ><BR>>
> > > The charge was
in relation to an undercover law<BR>>
> enforcement sting<BR>>
> > > conducted by
the Washington County Sheriff's Office<BR>> in
Oregon<BR>> >
> between<BR>>
> > > April and July
2008. The investigating officer was a<BR>> member
of<BR>> >
> > Oregon's Internet Crimes Against Children
Task Force.<BR>> >
> ><BR>>
> > > The officer
posed as a 13-year-old girl from Oregon, and<BR>>
> Heustis<BR>>
> > > exchanged
explicit information through chat rooms<BR>> and
Web<BR>> >
> cameras with<BR>>
> > > the undercover
officer during that time.<BR>>
> >
><BR>> >
> > "It's been a long two years," Heustis said.
"I've<BR>> learned<BR>>
> a lot<BR>>
> >
from<BR>> >
> > it. A lot of things happened because of what
I did<BR>> on the<BR>>
> computer,<BR>>
> > > and I'm paying
the price for it."<BR>>
> >
><BR>> >
> > During the sentencing, Michelle Evans,
senior deputy<BR>> >
prosecuting<BR>> >
> > attorney for Latah County, asked for 10
years<BR>> probation and
a<BR>> >
> 90-day<BR>>
> > > jail
sentence.<BR>> >
> ><BR>>
> > > "I think that
it's appropriate to impress upon Mr.<BR>>
Heustis<BR>> > ...
the<BR>> >
> > seriousness of what he did," she
said.<BR>> >
> ><BR>>
> > > Evans said it
was fortunate Heustis was chatting with an<BR>>
> undercover<BR>>
> > > detective
instead of an actual victim during the<BR>>
incidents.<BR>> >
> ><BR>>
> > > Heustis must
register as a sex offender and complete sex<BR>>
> offender<BR>>
> > > treatment at
Valley Treatment Specialties in Clarkston.<BR>>
> >
><BR>> >
> > The computer he used during the
enticement<BR>> incidents, which
is<BR>> >
> in the<BR>>
> > > possession of
the Moscow Police Department, must be<BR>>
forfeited,<BR>> >
> and he<BR>>
> > > is not allowed
to use the Internet except for purposes<BR>>
> congruent<BR>>
> >
with<BR>> >
> > this probation
requirements.<BR>> >
> ><BR>>
> > > Under the terms
of his probation, he is not allowed<BR>> to
be<BR>> >
alone<BR>> >
> with<BR>>
> > > anyone under
the age of 18 and cannot frequent any city<BR>>
> parks or<BR>>
> > > schools where
children may be present.<BR>>
> >
><BR>> >
> > Heustis is prohibited from consuming
alcohol, but<BR>> Stegner
said<BR>> >
> Heustis<BR>>
> > > would still be
allowed to enter some bars to be able to<BR>>
> continue<BR>>
> > > playing drums
in his band.<BR>> >
> ><BR>>
> > > He was
sentenced to pay $100 in court costs.<BR>>
> >
><BR>> >
> > Latah County has never pursued an enticement
case like<BR>> > this
before,<BR>> >
> > Evans said.<BR>>
> >
><BR>> >
> > *Christina Lords *can be reached at (208)
882-5561, ext.<BR>> >
301, or by<BR>> >
> > e-mail to <A
href="mailto:clords@dnews.com">clords@dnews.com</A> <<A
href="mailto:clords@dnews.com">mailto:clords@dnews.com</A>><BR>>
<<A
href="mailto:clords@dnews.com">mailto:clords@dnews.com</A>><BR>>
> <<A
href="mailto:clords@dnews.com">mailto:clords@dnews.com</A>><BR>>
> > <<A
href="mailto:clords@dnews.com">mailto:clords@dnews.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>> >
>
> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
> > >
=======================================================<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>> >
> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto: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>>
> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto: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>> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
=======================================================<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>