citylog
The E-
Edition:
CW
page
by page

Tumblr.jpg Google_Plus.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Home / Articles / News / Cover Story /  Feature | Just Stop: How far will the Utah attorney general’s office go to silence Rachel Guyon? Page 4
Cover Story

Feature | Just Stop: How far will the Utah attorney general’s office go to silence Rachel Guyon? Page 4

By Stephen Dark
Posted // February 27,2008 -

NOSE JOB
Kristine Rogers believes this case could have been avoided if Kirk Torgensen or any of the attorney general’s staff caught up in the e-mail debacle had simply pressed the “delete” key on their computer.

Shurtleff vehemently disagrees. “It’s almost impossible to ignore,” he says. “You know these horrific allegations are out there, and there’s nothing you can do to stop it.” He continues, “What does that do for a normal citizen out there who’s been victimized the same way? How frustrating it is, how awful it is to feel powerless to be able to stop it from going on. That’s the story. Not blame the government.”

In theory, the average citizen has access to attorney general’s investigative resources. How readily available they are is another matter. Torgensen and his colleagues had instant access to state resources as they sought to protect their reputations.

The alleged victims—the attorneys—were referred to in most court documents only by their initials. The court custom is to do so only with juveniles or victims of sexual abuse. Ask Shurtleff to explain the break with custom and he says: “Nosy reporters, I don’t know.”

The five victims in the attorney general’s office were all represented in early pretrial hearings by Assistant Attorney General Kristine Knowlton who works in the Children’s Justice Division. When the defense complained that an attorney general could not act as a victims’ representative, Knowlton withdrew and was replaced by Utah Crime Victims Legal Clinic director Heidi Nestel. Victims’ advocates, Guyon’s lawyers argue, are for those too traumatized, too fragile or too young to attend court. Not some of the state’s top lawyers. Shurtleff disagrees. “Just because you’re a high-profile, experienced prosecutor doesn’t mean you’re not a victim and don’t need the victims’ service.”

Guyon, however, is not spared her blushes. Peter Guyon keeps quiet during most of the interviews for this story. He allows his co-counsel Rogers to speak for him. Dealing with the intimate issues of his niece’s past have not been easy. He learned things, he says, “I never wanted to know.”

hspace=5OUT OF CONTROL
Somewhere, somehow, the Rachel Guyon affair spiraled out of control. Whether Guyon or others wrote the e-mails, the more the state dug into them, the worse things got for all concerned. “It never was meant to become a major issue,” Shurtleff says. “It was always, ‘Hey, it’s a problem. Can it get resolved?’ Somehow, it couldn’t.”

How far the state went to resolve the problem might prove to be a sticky issue when Guyon stands trial. The 10 Homeland Security summonses arguably offer the defense a sizable stick with which to beat the state. The summonses state they are “to determine the liability for duties, taxes, fines, penalties or forfeitures and/or to ensure compliance with the laws or regulations administered by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” No reference to stalking or e-mail harassment appears. Summons recipients are instructed not to disclose the existence of the demands. Failure to comply with them, they are warned, will result in “proceedings in a U.S. District Court.”

In addition, one of these U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement summons to Qwest Communications also cited “a matter involving the sexual exploitation of a minor.” Several summons for member information faxed to MSN and Excite Network also referred to “Child sexual exploitation investigation.”

If the attorney general’s office effectively bypassed the courts to get the information it wanted on Guyon’s Internet records, it also clearly was not above using hot-button issues, namely child sexual predators on the Internet, to twist the arm of information networks like Yahoo! and MSN to cooperate with them promptly. Even if such an investigation was, to quote the defense in one filing, “imaginary.”

All Rachel Guyon wants is for the up-close lesson in criminal justice to come to an end. All Mark Shurtleff wants is for the e-mails to stop. “Just stop it; just stop,” he says, adding sentiments that Guyon, too, might echo in so many ways. “We wouldn’t be here today if it just stopped.”

 

Continue reading: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Read All
 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Post a comment
REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Posted // September 17,2012 at 12:08

I hate these  unsolicited E-mails as much as anyone   But 10 H. S. summons?  I suppose one can kill a fly with an earth mover, but how would you explain THAT  to your boss? (Oh, that's right- Shirtleff IS te boss).

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Posted // July 12,2011 at 11:31 Who are you Malcom X? You're posting offence to the word Dark? Incase you haven't heard SLC is the whitest place outside of scandinavia. Your rant makes you appear crazy or even more racist than 'Dark.' Stop shooting your arguement in the foot, and post with something even mildly relevant.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Posted // August 5,2009 at 17:52

So in other words . . . Utah's Attorney General's office abused the Patriot Act in order to pursue a personal vendetta ??

Why does that not surprise me ?

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Posted // March 11,2008 at 17:53 I want to make sure prople know that I do not agree with what Rachel Guyon did. It was wrong. As a victim of the same thing, I want people to know that my records were obtain without a court order from a judge and distributed to the public illegally. Nor was a subpoena used to obtain information on my private life. The information that went out was all through the AG’s office, including the phone calls and faxs to the media and police. The stalking from the AG’s employee was unconstitutional, even though I was told it was that workers 1st admendment freedom of speech. When I tried to protect myself, I was denied that. I too tried to stop the victimization I was going through, however, the AG’s office did nothing. I wanted to protect my reputation and I still do. This is also one of the women who along with some other AG workers that said some horrible things that happened at a party. The story was made up. Yet she still works there. All I want is to let the Ag’s office know that this is how I felt when I went through this. I know some people are being hurt by this, they now know how it feels. I was silenced through Opression by Authority. I hope after this is all over with, the AG’s office will relook at how they help others along with working with their staff when they are being stalked by a predator.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Posted // March 8,2008 at 09:06 The person that was responsible for sending the emails is Kevin Rose. he was given that info and used it to his advantage. The AG’s office knows who he is, refused to do anything about it, instead went after the wrong person. Had they listened at the beginning, this would have been taken care of, and not have gone this far.

 

 
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next »
 
Close
Close
Close