Senator Montgomery's primary challenger, who initially promised a "respectful" campaign (and that lasted about a quick sneeze, didn't it?) has gone totally dirty with a mailer sent out under his name. (It's still unclear how much control he has over his own campaign and how much he's being controlled by the Charter School HedgeHogs who are bankrolling him. If he's a puppet, he's certainly a willing puppet, and we can't have that in the Senate, ever!)
In this sleazy mailer, in addition to the typical foggy nothing statements about his goals, background, and beliefs, readers are for some reason treated to some juvenile artwork about the 80's. Maybe he has fond memories of that decade. BUT...then there are some serious misstatements about a tiny fraction of Senator Montgomery's voting record. Let's clean up those smears.
POLLARD SMEAR ATTEMPT #1
“Senate Bill 6418A: Making it a crime to cause the death of a person by the sale of a controlled substance.” (2010)
“Senate Bill 6418A: Making it a crime to cause the death of a person by the sale of a controlled substance.” (2010)
REBUTTAL:
Mr. Pollard doesn’t mention that the bill only addresses one controlled substance: heroin. Not that being more specific would have improved the bill…
Mr. Pollard doesn’t mention that the bill only addresses one controlled substance: heroin. Not that being more specific would have improved the bill…
This bill was a double stinker.
1. It’s based on the misconception that increasing the
penalties for drug use and sale actually acts as a deterrent. It has been
solidly proven that beyond a much lower threshold this is not the case. It is
Rockefeller Drug Law thinking. The bill was opposed by the NY Civil Liberties
Union and the Drug Policy Alliance on that basis.
2. It already IS a crime to cause the death of anyone by any
means! This is the kind of grandstanding duplicative legislation the 2004
Brennan Center report roasted NYS on, and the Senator is very careful not to
support this sort of bad legislation. Not only is it duplicative but it burdens
the courts and sometimes creates loopholes in existing laws.
POLLARD SMEAR ATTEMPT #2
“Senate Bill 1862: Establishing the crime of facilitating a sexual performance by a child with a controlled substance or alcohol.” (2008)
“Senate Bill 1862: Establishing the crime of facilitating a sexual performance by a child with a controlled substance or alcohol.” (2008)
REBUTTAL:
Again, a totally duplicative law. It’s already criminal to offer a minor alcohol or a controlled sustance for ANY reason, and of course sexual performance by a minor (kiddy porn) is a high crime. This bill adds nothing but deadweight to the legal system and may, in the hands of a clever defense attorney, offer a loophole in pleading for clemency before a jury. “At least I didn’t use alcohol…!” Stranger pleas have been made because of deadwood like this.
Again, a totally duplicative law. It’s already criminal to offer a minor alcohol or a controlled sustance for ANY reason, and of course sexual performance by a minor (kiddy porn) is a high crime. This bill adds nothing but deadweight to the legal system and may, in the hands of a clever defense attorney, offer a loophole in pleading for clemency before a jury. “At least I didn’t use alcohol…!” Stranger pleas have been made because of deadwood like this.
POLLARD SMEAR ATTEMPT #3
“Senate Bill 1687: Prohibitting a sex offender from being granted unsupervised visitation with a child.” (2010)
“Senate Bill 1687: Prohibitting a sex offender from being granted unsupervised visitation with a child.” (2010)
REBUTTAL:
This bill never made it out of Committee. It is also grossly simplified and mischaracterized by Pollard. The bill didn’t just address visitation, it forbade custody of children by a sex offender. The definition of sex offender is distressingly broad and many times does not focus on children. This bill would have unnecessarily required the breaking up of families. If a man (or woman) is convicted of hiring a prostitute they are technically a sex offender: under this bill anyone so labelled would lose custody of their children. Can you say “Elliott Spitzer?”
This bill never made it out of Committee. It is also grossly simplified and mischaracterized by Pollard. The bill didn’t just address visitation, it forbade custody of children by a sex offender. The definition of sex offender is distressingly broad and many times does not focus on children. This bill would have unnecessarily required the breaking up of families. If a man (or woman) is convicted of hiring a prostitute they are technically a sex offender: under this bill anyone so labelled would lose custody of their children. Can you say “Elliott Spitzer?”
POLLARD SMEAR ATTEMPT #4
“Senate Bill 406: Increasing penalties for those convicted of sex crimes where the victim is less than eleven years old.” (2009)
“Senate Bill 406: Increasing penalties for those convicted of sex crimes where the victim is less than eleven years old.” (2009)
REBUTTAL:
This bill never made it out of committee. No credible evidence was presented that passage of the bill (which merely increases penalties for already existing violations of the criminal code) would do anything to deter the offenses or make children safer in any way. And the provisions stipulated would have been enormously expensive.
This bill never made it out of committee. No credible evidence was presented that passage of the bill (which merely increases penalties for already existing violations of the criminal code) would do anything to deter the offenses or make children safer in any way. And the provisions stipulated would have been enormously expensive.
In addition it would have limited a judge’s discretion in
sentencing. Any judge can increase penalties with good cause unless restricted
by legislation: this sort of bill would require actions that may not be
indicated and preclude other actions by a judge. The Senator routinely opposes
bills that limit judicial sentencing discretion, like the Rockefeller Drug
Laws. It’s somewhat surprising that a supposed defense attorney like Mr.
Pollard would argue against judicial discretion…
POLLARD SMEAR ATTEMPT #5
“Senate Bill 6259: Requiring transfer of campaign funds to the state treasury or a charitable organization upon the death of an elected official” (2010)
“Senate Bill 6259: Requiring transfer of campaign funds to the state treasury or a charitable organization upon the death of an elected official” (2010)
REBUTTAL:
The Senator argued that the funds should first be returned to the people who donated to the campaign, or that the donors should be part of the discretionary decisions.
The Senator argued that the funds should first be returned to the people who donated to the campaign, or that the donors should be part of the discretionary decisions.
POLLARD SMEAR ATTEMPT #6
“Senate Bill 1319B: Mandating life imprisonment without parole for a conviction of a murder committed in the course of a sex crime where the victim is less than fourteen years old.” (2004)
“Senate Bill 1319B: Mandating life imprisonment without parole for a conviction of a murder committed in the course of a sex crime where the victim is less than fourteen years old.” (2004)
REBUTTAL:
Again, a grandstanding duplicative bill. “Joan’s Law.” Murder during a sex crime is mandatory life sentence regardless of age. There were other technical problems with the bill, which BTW the Assembly never passed.
Again, a grandstanding duplicative bill. “Joan’s Law.” Murder during a sex crime is mandatory life sentence regardless of age. There were other technical problems with the bill, which BTW the Assembly never passed.
POLLARD SMEAR ATTEMPT #7
“Senate Bill 3479A: Providing that assaults against MTA employees be classified as criminal assaults.” (2003)
“Senate Bill 3479A: Providing that assaults against MTA employees be classified as criminal assaults.” (2003)
REBUTTAL:
This bill also contained a curious removal of the publication requirement advertising the higher penalty, which might have acted as a deterrent. Instead, it was fashioned as a “gotcha” law for prosecutors. So, no deterrence, more prosecution. Hard to defend that and again, a possible loophole for a clever defense attorney.
This bill also contained a curious removal of the publication requirement advertising the higher penalty, which might have acted as a deterrent. Instead, it was fashioned as a “gotcha” law for prosecutors. So, no deterrence, more prosecution. Hard to defend that and again, a possible loophole for a clever defense attorney.
Smears. Slimy and desperate. And such a good use of Charter
School money!
COME OUT AND VOTE FOR SENATOR MONTGOMERY ON PRIMARY DAY!
SEPTEMBER 14TH!
