Amy Castillo is a MoCo pediatrician who unsuccessfully tried to get a final protective order against her abusive husband, who later drowned her three children. Castillo testified before the House Judiciary Committee in support of a bill sponsored by Delegate Sue Hecht (D-3A) and Senator Jennie Forehand (D-17) that would have made it easier for abuse victims to obtain protective orders. Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) went after Castillo at the hearing and the committee killed the bill. Now Castillo is endorsing Simmons's Republican opponent, Dan Campos, in this mailer.
Showing posts with label Luiz Simmons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luiz Simmons. Show all posts
Monday, November 01, 2010
Domestic Violence Victim Takes on Simmons
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Campos Goes After Simmons on Domestic Violence
Republican District 17 House candidate Dan Campos has sent out the mailer below going after Democratic Delegate Luiz Simmons on domestic violence. Simmons is running on that issue, but Campos reminds voters of his introduction of the abuser expungement bill and his vote against a bill that would have made it easier for abuse victims to get protective orders. These sorts of votes are a big reason why Montgomery County NOW and NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland have endorsed Campos instead of Simmons despite Campos's running as a Republican.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Luiz Simmons Runs on Domestic Violence Issue
Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) has sent out the following general election mailer touting his credentials in fighting domestic violence. We find his issue choice ironic given his introduction of a bill to allow accused abusers to expunge their court records, his vote against another bill that would have made it easier to obtain protective orders from abusers and his conduct in a hearing with a victim whose children were killed by an abuser.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Luiz Simmons Joins the 21st Century
Kudos to former Gazette reporter Doug Tallman for remembering the hilarious email we printed from Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) last fall. And thanks to House Majority Leader Kumar "Bad Boy" Barve for being a reliable source of good material!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Simmons-Kramer Hump-or-Dump Bill
Delegates Luiz Simmons (D-17) and Ben Kramer (D-19) have filed a bill allowing a divorce to be granted if the parties are not having sex. No, we are not making this up!
Current Maryland family law allows a divorce if the parties “are living separate and apart without cohabitation.” Simmons and Kramer would delete that language and replace it with “are not engaging in sexual relations.” In other words, get it on or get out!
This bill raises all kinds of questions, folks. With due respect to our former President, what does “sexual relations” include? Are we talking about first base? How about second or third base? Or is it just grand slams? Do toys count? What about surrogates? What evidence will be admissible in court? Would it have to be sterilized first?
Let no one accuse Delegates Simmons or Kramer of being chauvinists because their bill is not gender-specific. That means an awful lot of country club husbands with trophy wives should be trembling with performance anxiety. They will have to put out or pay up! This will be a real boon for prenup lawyers with imagination. The pharmaceutical industry will also see a bump-up in profits. Will this guy be testifying for the bill?
What if the spouse who says no to nookie is the one demanding a divorce? Imagine a couple marries way too quickly, and on the wedding night, the bride discovers why her new husband’s college nickname was “Stumpy.” Is she entitled to a quickie divorce? Or just a quickie?
In the event that this bill is passed, we would like to see a Blue Ribbon Commission write the implementing regulations. Here are our nominees.
Tiger Woods
Wilt Chamberlain
Madonna
Bret Michaels
Narain Dutt Tiwari, the 86-year-old former Indian Governor whose three-girl sex video has had more viewers than the Olympics
And of course, the butt-busting, bubbalicious babes of Cathouse.
Giddyup!
Friday, January 22, 2010
Barking for Transparency
You’ve seen this before. It’s a quiet night in the neighborhood. Then one dog barks. And then another. And another. Soon the entire neighborhood is full of barking. So it is with liberals howling on behalf of transparency.
This round of noise in the night started with Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39), who proposed a bill based on a good idea: committee votes should be just as accessible on the General Assembly’s website as are floor votes. Ali worked the press hard on this issue, obtaining editorial support from both the Post and the Sun. But Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20) said that Ali’s bill was not enough, arguing along with Common Cause Executive Director Ryan O’Donnell for a package of bills. And then Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) slammed Mizeur for not addressing the ancient practice by Committee Chairs of putting bills “in the drawer,” or not holding votes on them at all. Most improbably, individuals associated with Montgomery County’s Progressive Neighbors claim credit for the idea too, even seeking to trademark Las Vegas’ celebrated tourist slogan for themselves. Don’t they understand that successful advocacy groups heap credit upon their bill sponsors and not upon themselves? Now even the Republicans are involved.
And then this shameful squabble erupted on Delegate Ali’s Facebook page. The bickering goes on too long to fit on one screenshot, but it is enough for our readers to get the idea.
Meanwhile, little logistical work has been done. Who is briefing the presiding officers and their staff? Did anyone bother to do that before running off panting to the newspapers? Who is talking to the relevant Committee Chairs who will consider the bill(s)? Who is lobbying the committee members? Who is assembling research on how other states disclose committee votes, and on the benefits that ensue? Who is putting in the difficult, but invisible work of actually getting something passed? Is anyone? Or is everyone so busy getting their names into the press that no one is doing any work?
The only result of all of this barking for attention so far is to create mirth in the halls of Annapolis. One spy in the capital had this comment on the fracas:The transparency proposals are modifications of an idea that Republicans started pushing three years ago. In 2007, Warren Miller and Alex Mooney (two of the most conservative Republicans in the legislature) sponsored a transparency bill (it failed). In 2008, they brought it back, and it passed unanimously. In 2009, Verna Jones sponsored a bill (which passed unanimously), and the Senate began putting committee votes online. This year, everyone's trying to get in the mix. Heather Mizeur and Saqib Ali introduced bills. The Republicans in both chambers proposed rule changes. Nancy King wrote to the Senate President to request a rule change. And Common Cause is floating around, hopelessly unaware of what's happening or how to affect the outcome. If anything is going to happen, look for the Democratic leadership in both chambers to make the issue their own and resolve it without legislation... long before a hearing is even scheduled on Mizeur or Ali's proposals.
And so the most likely outcome is a limited administrative change. As for the broader agenda pushed by squabbling liberals? All of you Redskins fans should be acquainted with the phrase, “There’s always next year.”
Friday, September 18, 2009
Was This a Legal Robocall?
Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) sent out a robocall into his district on Monday without an authority line. Was that legal?
On September 14, many residents of Rockville and Gaithersburg received this phone message:This is Lou Simmons, your State Delegate. Recently your District 17 legislative team mailed you our Annapolis Report. Together with Senator Forehand and Delegates Barve and Gilchrist, we have made some tough decisions and there are tough decisions ahead in 2010. Please contact me at delegatesimmons@aol.com or call me on 301-589-6400 to share your suggestions and ideas.
Section 1-101 of Maryland’s election code defines an individual as a candidate if “a campaign finance entity has been established on behalf of that individual.” Delegate Simmons clearly qualifies. Section 1-101 also defines campaign materials as “any material that… relates to a candidate” and includes “an oral commercial campaign advertisement,” in other words, robocalls. Section 13-401 requires all campaign materials, whether they are distributed by candidates or not, to include authority lines listing the name and address of the campaign treasurer or other entity distributing the message. We have caught both Robin Ficker and the Parents Coalition breaking this rule before.
This is Delegate Lou Simmons. Thanks for listening.
We sent the following email of inquiry.Dear Delegate Simmons:
He responded:
My name is Adam Pagnucco. I am the author of Maryland Politics Watch blog (http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/).
I am writing about a recent robocall you made in District 17. Can you tell me whether taxpayer money or campaign funds were used to finance the call? And can you explain why the call lacked an authority line?
Thank you, Adam PagnuccoDear Adam Thank you for your note. I think it very exciting that you have a Blog. I have not read it. Is this a high school project? Which high school do you attend. We need good journalists today. There so many bloggers today who write scurrilous items without respect for the facts. I am happy to respond to your questions. First I sent out a call to my district on Monday. The call will be paid for from my personal funds. I pay for thousands of dollars of constituent oriented expense from personal funds. The state does not give you much money for staff and outreach etc. The call was not a campaign call and so, in my opinion, it does not require an authority line. The call was part of my periodic outreach to the community I serve. The call begins with me identifying clearly who I am, the purpose of my call, and gives both my email address and telephone number. I hope this is responsive to your inquiry. If you and your class would like to visit Annapolis during the next session I would be happy to arrange it. I wish you success in all of your endeavors and trust you will always be faithful to the highest standards of the profession. Sincere Warm wishes, Luiz
Delegate Simmons says this was just “outreach to the community” and is exempt from state election law. We find no such exemption in the state code. If anyone can, please bring it to our attention. Furthermore, unlike End-of-Session letters written by state staff in Annapolis, this call referred recipients to the Delegate’s private email address. Is that sort of solicitation really outside the state’s regulatory scope? Finally, let’s recall that Simmons is a lawyer who should be sensitive to these types of issues.
Here’s our advice: if there’s any question as to whether a communication is political or is directly related to government service, just throw on the authority line. It’s quick. It’s easy. And you won’t have your email asking a 39-year-old Dad to bring his high school classmates to Annapolis published anywhere. We promise!
Monday, March 30, 2009
Kramer Endorsed by Leggett, Trachtenberg (Updated)
We hear that County Executive Ike Leggett and County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg endorsed Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) in the District 4 special election at an event in Leisure World today. Also in attendance were former County Executive Sid Kramer and District 14 Senator Rona Kramer (Ben Kramer's father and sister), Alison Klumpp (the Praisners' daughter), Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Vallario (D-27A).
Update: Check out Ann Marimow's coverage, in which Ben Kramer says he will be a "conduit" for Leggett on the council.
Update 2: The Gazette also reported on the event.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Abuser Expungement Bill Rises From the Grave
Yesterday, we reported that a bill sponsored by Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) allowing accused domestic abusers to expunge their records was defeated. But we spoke too soon: the House of Delegates acted today to revive the bill and send it back to the Judiciary Committee to be re-worked.
Simmons’ bill would allow people accused of abuse who had their civil protective orders dismissed or denied by a judge to get those records expunged. Simmons and other bill supporters claim that the existence of these records caused problems for the accused in seeking employment and housing even though they were not upheld in court. Opponents responded that nearly all other civil defendants do not have the right of expungement and questioned why that right should be given to accused abusers alone. Others, including Delegate Cheryl Glenn (D-45), claimed that abused spouses are often reluctant to press charges in court, so their abusers should not be rewarded with expungement rights.
The expungement bill’s 64-69-8 defeat attracted substantial coverage from the Post and the Sun yesterday. But in a startling reversal, the House of Delegates reconsidered its vote on the bill today by a 76-63-2 margin, sending it back to the Judiciary Committee for revamping. The bill’s resurrection is due to the following group of 16 Delegates who voted against it yesterday but then voted to revive it today:
Saqib Ali (D-39)
John Bohanan (D-29B)
Rudolph Cane (D-37A)
Virginia Clagett (D-30)
Steven DeBoy (D-12A)
Adelaide Eckardt (R-37B)
Donald Elliott (R-4B)
James Gilchrist (D-17)
Guy Guzzone (D-13)
Marvin Holmes (D-23B)
Stephen Lafferty (D-42)
Murray Levy (D-28)
James Malone (D-12A)
Shane Pendergrass (D-13)
Justin Ross (D-22)
Frank Turner (D-13)
How could these legislators change their opinion on one bill that was not amended in just 24 hours?
Another fact worth noting is that support for the bill split partially along gender lines. On the first vote, female legislators voted against the bill 15-29-4 while male legislators voted for it 49-40-4. On the second vote, female legislators voted against the bill 17-30-1 while male legislators voted to reconsider it 59-33-1.
Among Montgomery Delegates, Luiz Simmons (D-17), Brian Feldman (D-15), Ben Kramer (D-19) and Henry Heller (D-19) voted for the bill both times, Kumar Barve (D-17) voted for the bill the first time but voted against reconsideration, Saqib Ali (D-39) and James Gilchrist (D-17) voted against the bill but then voted to revive it and the rest of the delegation opposed it consistently.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Luiz Simmons’ Abuser Expungement Bill (Updated)
Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17), who is a trial attorney, has introduced a bill enabling accused domestic abusers to expunge their court records. No, folks, we are not making this up.
HB 1181, sponsored by Simmons, states the following in its header:For the purpose of authorizing a respondent in a certain domestic violence proceeding to file a written request to expunge court records relating to the proceeding under certain circumstances; providing that a certain request for expungement may not be filed within a certain time except under certain circumstances; requiring the court to order the expungement of all court records relating to the proceeding under certain circumstances; providing a certain exception; requiring certain custodians to notify the court and the respondent of compliance with the order; defining certain terms; and generally relating to domestic violence and the expungement of certain court records.
According to this bill, if an abused spouse petitions a court for a protective order and that petition is dismissed or denied, the accused abuser can have the records expunged after three years. This is a rare protection under civil law. If a defendant is sued for fraud, breach of contract, negligence, defamation or just about anything else, the court records are preserved even if the case is settled or thrown out. But this bill would give accused abusers a special ability to expunge denied to almost all other civil defendants.
This bill also gives tremendous leverage to abusers over victims. Suppose a victim tells an abuser she wants to seek court protection. The abuser can say he will hire a lawyer, get the court to deny the petition and expunge his records. The abuser can then claim that any action by the victim to pursue court protection will be futile and produce zero consequence to the abuser. The victim could then very well be deterred from seeking a court order.
On February 27, the House Judiciary Committee voted 18-3 to approve the bill. Among Montgomery's Delegates, Simmons and Ben Kramer (D-19) voted in favor and Kathleen Dumais (D-15), Susan Lee (D-16) and Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18) voted against.
The bill is now moving along with the Governor’s two bills protecting domestic violence victims. If the House passes this bill but stalls the Governor’s efforts to prevent domestic abuse, the chamber will be drenched in shame.
Update: The expungement bill was defeated today on a 64-69 vote. Four Delegates were present but did not vote and four were excused.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Slots Debate: Simmons vs Perez
From Carole Brand.
As you know, the November election will bring to the ballot a referendum on expanding slot machines in the state of Maryland. This proposal has evoked strong arguments for and against it, and on WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 10th, at 7:30 pm, there will be a forum to help you explore this issue and its implications for our state.
Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) will take the anti-slots position, and Maryland Secretary of Labor Tom Perez will take the pro-slots position. Bruce De Puyt of News Channel 8 will moderate the discussion. County Council Member Nancy Floreen will introduce the evening.
The forum is free of charge and open to all. Questions will be taken from the audience.
Date: Wednesday, September 10, 7:30 - 9:00 p.m.
Place: Woman's Club of Chevy Chase
7931 Connecticut Avenue
Chevy Chase, Maryland
contact: Carole Brand 301-657-2547 or csbrand@verizon.net
Sponsored by Woman's Suburban Democratic Club of Montgomery County.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Luiz Simmons Breathes Fire, Burns Bridges on Slots
Kathleen Miller of the Examiner picked up some nice quotes from flame-throwing Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) blasting his colleagues for not supporting the anti-slots campaign. Here's a sample:“Slots are the easy road for politicians to travel down; it holds the promise of a free lunch, all net-net and no cost,” the Montgomery Democrat said. “Overwhelmingly, those who lose money are the poor, the old, the vulnerable and racial minorities, the very same people we’re always saying we are trying to help...”
Well now! We ran a complete list of the elected leaders who joined the anti-slots campaign back in May, along with those who voted against the referendum but did not sign on with Marylanders United to Stop Slots. Delegate Simmons is a longtime opponent of slots, but one wonders whether statements such as these are the best way to persuade his fellow politicians to join his cause.
Simmons said, “The Montgomery County political establishment has caved in here.” What bugs him the most, he added, is that Montgomery’s state legislators, who largely fought together against slots proposals from former Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, were vital to passing this year’s referendum.
“I thought when many people spoke out against Ehrlich’s slots, that they spoke on principle,” Simmons said. “It turns out they spoke on politics. Here’s a group that said rhetorically, we’re against slots, but when push came to shove, the referendum couldn’t have passed without them.”
Would you care for some saltpeter to go with that nitroglycerin you've been drinking, Delegate?
Friday, March 23, 2007
MoCo Legislators Attack Anti-Gay Amendment
Equality Maryland thanked various legislators on the House Judiciary Committee for their support in killing Del. Don Dwyer's (R-Anne Arundel) constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Their email gave plaudits to a number of MoCo legislators for thanks, including Susan Lee (D-16)--a real leader in the fight for gay and lesbian rights. Other members of the committee who were thanked for challenging witnesses testifying against the amendment included:
Del. Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18) repeatedly challenged a Baptist conference leader about his interpretation of Leviticus, citing passage after passage about other biblical “abominations,” and asking the clergy member if he would support a bill to ban the consumption of shellfish, or the wearing of clothing of two different fabrics.It seems as if all those years of Hebrew School were not wasted on our new delegate here in District 18.
Del. Luiz Simmons (D-17) used his strong legal background to call out the witnesses who clamored for a “popular vote” on the issue, saying that the idea that every issue of contention in the General Assembly should go to a public referendum was silly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
