School Board Applicant Boasted About Pornographer Client

We hate running posts like this. Some time ago we received this information, but it took a while to corroborate it. Equally importantly to us, we weren’t convinced of its relevance, even though the person involved is a prominent social media presence on school issues. Pressure mounted when a culture warrior on the Board of Supervisors brought the person on as a staff member. Still we resisted. Then the person applied to replace Gil Trenum on the School Board.

As pressure on us to post rose, we were hard pressed to justify not doing so. This was not a private matter involving the individual, it was argued. Instead, it was a professional decision of theirs and one that they had boasted about publicly. Eventually, we were overwhelmed by the argument that the Haddow-Candland Cabal, through their house organ, the Sheriff of Nottingham forgery and fabrication blog, has for more than four years viciously attacked people with lies, innuendo and half-truths. It continues to do so. If this involved someone the Haddow-Candland Cabal disagreed with, the Cabal would long ago, without corroboration or relevance, have published the information, along with a scathing and hypocritical tirade about the person’s fitness for anything whatsoever.

It was also pointed out to us that the Haddow-Candland Cabal had not only participated actively in the 4th of July Forgery, but had not so long ago lied about us, insinuating that we were attacking Gil Trenum’s nominees for his replacement, even though we had never written on the subject at all. Now we think we know why they did so. They were trying to get ahead of something they already knew about.

So, we’ve relented, but we take no pleasure in it.

The Muckraker has learned and corroborated that last year, PWC Education Reform administrator and sometime Brentsville Supervisor Jeanine Lawson staffer, Kim Simons, boasted to a number of individuals about taking on a pornographer as one of her clients. Simons was allegedly looking for business (she is an accountant) and while socializing at a public meeting boasted to multiple people about the client relationship. We confirmed in the corroboration process that those who heard her comments understood her to be serious, that she was not joking, and that she was indeed boasting.

There is nothing illegal in Kim Simons’ actions. Nor are we expressing any views on what, if anything, this says about her character. In fact, we compliment her for calling out Greg Letiecq when he ridiculed the school system for receiving an “unqualified” audit opinion (which unbeknownst to the fact-impaired Letiecq is a good thing).

But there is no getting around the question of whether or not this is appropriate for someone applying to be on the School Board.

Simons is already intimately involved in the PWC Education Reform site, which as we have reported in the past, sometimes unfortunately engages in bullying and dismissive commentary, particularly toward minorities and the poor, which we find troubling on a site devoted to public education. That same group participated in challenging the prominent African-American philanthropist George Hampton’s war record without any evidence whatsoever, only to be called out by the Muckraker when we published documentation verifying his record (there was no formal apology from the site, incidentally). Then, Simons was one of the select few who recently received confidential information from School Board member Willie Deutsch about an applicant with whom Simons was competing for the School Board seat.

All of these things are troubling for someone aspiring to be a member of a School Board.

Now, we learn that Simons publicly boasted about retaining a pornographer as a client. Again, there is nothing illegal about this. Simons is not, however, for example, an attorney who can argue that everyone, no matter their guilt, is entitled to a fair defense. Nor is she someone who has been taken advantage of by the industry as a young person wooed with claims of celebrity or attention.

Instead, if her boasts were true, she consciously chose in her professional capacity to facilitate the industry’s exploitation of people for her own personal financial gain and then boasted about it in public. It goes without saying that some of these individuals being legally exploited by the industry could actually still be in high school. Maybe even here in Prince William County.

We know what the Haddow-Candland Cabal would do on their forgery and fabrication blog if Simons were someone they disagreed with. For our part, however, we will say no more at this time and simply let the reader judge the facts for themselves.

[Muckraker Note: We obviously do not agree with Simons on substantive issues or on her tactics. We will not allow comments in response to this post, however, to be a free for all assault on her character. Keep comments relevant to her status as a school board applicant. Also, there is a tendency for posts on the School Board to involve free for all commentary on 2015 School Board candidate, Tracy Conroy. She’s got nothing to do with this, so . . . just don’t bother.]

Share

20 comments on “School Board Applicant Boasted About Pornographer Client

  1. -

    I don’t know if this is relevant to Simons’ character. But what I will say is that if the Haddow/Candal group of Mac Haddow, Pete Candland, Jeanine Lawson, Ruth Anderson, Rich Anderson or Willie Deutsch had found out that a Democratic official or candidate was knowingly personally and directly benefiting financially from the porn industry they would launch an all out assault online and if it was during a campaign they would send out mailers that made it look as ugly as possible. You are being way too nice Muckraker.

  2. -

    You’re [edited out] for not allowing comments about Conroy.

  3. -

    Typical right wing hypocrites. Jeanine Lawson would claim this was disqualifying if it was a Democrat but she won’t say a word since it’s a friend and staff member of hers.

  4. -

    You might have been reluctant to post about this but if you knew the lies and slanders that Simons has spread in support of Jeanine Lawson you wouldn’t have any reservations about it at all.

  5. -

    Great work! You brought up what needed to be said and acted to keep the discussion from wandering off topic. Didn’t you post a while back about Simons’ comments about undeserving East Enders or was that another blog?

  6. -

    This disqualifies her from any office or being on the county payroll, Lawson holds herself out to be a righteous person yet supports and employs someone involved in the sex trade. This is disgusting.

  7. -

    And she wants to be on the school board? [Edited out]

  8. -

    Protect poor “little” [edited out] Tracy some more. Give me a break.

  9. -

    I agree with the Muckraker that this absolutely disqualifies Kim Simons from serving on the School Board.

    [Muckraker Note: For the record, we did not express an opinion on whether or not this disqualifies Simons from serving on the School Board. We do unequivocally agree, however, with those who say that the Haddow-Candland Cabal, including Simons’ sometime employer Brentsville Supervisor Jeanine Lawson, would immediately call for the disqualification of a Democrat who had done what Simons did.]

  10. -

    This is the character of the “highly qualified” applicants Gil put forward? Seriously? I can’t wait to see what saints the other two are.

    The hate blogs did us a favor running Shaw off. He can’t compete with that kind of riffraff.

    [Muckraker Note: To our knowledge there is no evidence that Gil Trenum knew about this before putting Simons’ name forward.]

  11. -

    Well if you don’t want to render a judgment on Simons I will. This is scandalous and we have to wonder what Gil Trenum was thinking. She should withdraw her name from consideration and resign from Lawson’s staff. Ryan Sawyers was right all along to look for other options.

    [Muckraker Note: To our knowledge there is no evidence that Gil Trenum knew of this before putting Simons’ name forward.]

  12. -

    Putting to one side the relationship itself, what type of judgment does it show on the part of Simons to be boasting about this at a public meeting. Typical hypocrisy from the Lawson crowd.

  13. -

    I bet you Jeanine Lawson, Mac Haddow, Pete Candland and Reese Collins have all been chatting with each other about how to spin this.

  14. -

    Why does that person keep talking about Tracy? This situation has nothing to do with her, unless I am missing something.

  15. -

    Kim has a long history of excoriating others. Time for her big mouth to start paying the piper.

  16. -

    Raven I agree completely, Simons has been judge and jury for years now with all of Lawson’s encouragement behind her. She’s been running her big mouth without any consideration for facts and it’s time that she gets exposed for what she is, a little foot soldier for the cabal and unable to make bi-partisan decisions to protect our school children. She is an unacceptable candidate, must be removed from the list, and that’s that!

  17. -

    So Jeanine must be sharpening her pitchforks, reserving the podium at McCoart, and calling on all her ladies in red for backup in the photo op for her last minute press conference she’s going to call to condemn Simons behavior, right???
    oh wait, this is one of her people, backup plan…call Mac and ask how to pretend that it’s no big deal…business as usual, disgusting.

  18. -

    Gil Trenum should have known, or at the very least, should have asked the three he put forward what might disqualify them from holding public office. After all, he did say that none of them had held public office before. Maybe now we know why! They’re nothing but a bunch of right-wing hacks who live in their own echo chamber with the attitude of do as I say and not as I do. What a bunch of creeps!

  19. -

    @Prudence, the reason “that person” keeps talking about Tracy is because she is best friends with Kim. What kind of judgement does that show? Why doesn’t Tracy speak out against Kim’s relationship (although “professional”) with the pornographer? She knows this blog exists and she reads it. Does she condone the KimPorn relationship?

  20. -

    She should not be within a 1000 yards of children including [edited out]. Why is she involved in the sexual exploitation of women? Is she insane?

Comments are closed.