Constantin Querard's Taxpayer-Paid Bootlickers David Gowan, Steve Montenegro, Carl Seel, Steve Smith, and Kelly Townsend Do Their Master's Bidding

By Stephen Lemons Tue., Feb. 26 2013 at 10:44 AM

Continued from page 2

During the defamation suit, more CQ shenanigans were uncovered with his nonprofit Arizona Family Project, which paid him a salary and was allegedly used to affect the outcomes of GOP primaries.

"I turned the light on and they scattered like cockroaches," Ryan said of those exposed in the trial. "Know why? Because they're cockroaches."

Concerning Liddy's allegation that Querard had been "utilizing illegal tactics to launder tax-exempt nonprofit money into politics," the judge in the libel case said he believed Liddy's statement to be true and ruled against QC.

No wonder Querard wants HB 2551 passed.

On the committee, Democrat Andrea Dalessandro had the temerity to ask how many of the committee's members were clients of CQ.

Of course, Montenegro didn't like that question and advised Dalessandro to "be careful" with such insinuations. Even if they're accurate.

CQ pointed out his problems with finding the right committee.

"I have 20 clients in this Legislature," Querard replied. "It's impossible for me to find a committee that doesn't have someone I've worked with or against [on it]."

He reminded Dalessandro that he had run campaigns against her in the past, and he issued what sounded like a not-so-veiled threat.

"You've heard the bill," CQ told her. "Do you want to go back to your district and tell them, 'By the way, any state agency can go to your bank, take what they want to, [and] they don't have to tell you about it, and I voted to say that was okay?'"

CQ left out the part about having that little thing called a subpoena or a warrant. Next thing you know, Querard will want to outlaw them altogether.

The political slaves of CQ on the committee wrapped themselves in the flag and the U.S. Constitution. They pointed to a similar federal law and suggested this was all about protecting citizens' Fourth Amendment Rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Republican legislator Debbie Lesko voted for the bill, too, though she doesn't belong to CQ. Rather GOP consultant Chad Willems and the American Legislative Exchange Council have claims on her.

Still, the mere fact that CQ didn't get Lesko elected allowed her to voice concern over what DES objected to in the bill.

Montenegro, Gowan, Townsend, Seel, and Smith are willing pawns, and they get something for their service to CQ.

They have their seats in the legislature, free lunches on the House lawn from special interest groups, and lobbyists galore kissing their fannies.

This, friends, is our representative democracy? Don't bemoan its workings. After all, you must admit it represents CQ pretty darn well.

Tags:

Carl Seel, Constantin Querard, David Gowan, Kelly Townsend, Steve Montenegro, Steve Smith

marcy

I support bills that restrict the ability of the government OR private entities from going on fishing expeditions via subpoenas. I'm pleased with any bill that gives overbearing government agencies "headaches" as well. It should be difficult to subpoena bank records, ISP records and anything else. Being given sufficient time to hire counsel to quash an abusive subpoena is a good thing. Your bank records aren't going anywhere and con artists don't run off the Mexico, they just move to Florida and it isn't like our attorney general goes after con artists in the first place.

That the bill comes from a slime ball like Connie doesn't make it bad.

Just ask the Phoenix New Times what it is like to receive an abusive, fishing expedition subpoena. Thankfully they had the time and money to oppose it. That a New Times author would now suggest that people on the receiving end of a subpoena must be con artists or deadbeat dads is ironic.

arizonaeagletarian

1 Like

"amateur Muppet impersonator Kelly Townsend" I love it.

Truth_To_Power

2 Like

Isn't this a conflict of interest? You vote for a bill that specifically benefits the person who you paid to get you elected? This stinks to high heaven. Great reporting!

marcy

@Truth_To_Power

It doesn't specifically benefit anyone. Connie's issue with subpoenas was in the past.

Do you know what it would take for me to get your bank records, payroll records, list of every website you've visited and numbers of every person you called? I only need to file a bogus lawsuit making some bogus allegation and follow it up with a subpoena to your bank, your ISP, your employer and your phone provider. Guess what, they won't oppose the subpoena, they may not even notify you that they received a subpoena and instead just hand all that info over. If you want to stop those subpoenas you have to file a motion with the court to quash those subpoenas and unless you are smarter than most people you'll have to hire an attorney to do so and before all those people fork over the requested information.

A subpoena is a government enforced demand for information. People who believe that it should be HARDER, not easier to gain access to other people's private information support bills like this one. Those who naively believe that only con artists and deadbeat dads receive subpoenas might support it, out of ignorance.

dennis20 topcommenter

@marcy @Truth_To_Power This bill will change none of what you are talking about. The civil liberty spin they first tried putting on it was so shallow they even let it go as a talking point. The bill is designed to help sleaze-balls like CQ get around campaign finance laws.

david_saint01 topcommenter

2 Like

anyone approving this bill is screaming to get recalled. This just sounds like they want to be able to screw the tax payers, and get away with it..typical. Tea party, oh tea party..where are you now???

marcy

@david_saint01

A voter initiative to put some teeth in election laws is needed, not opposition to a law that makes it more difficult for someone to subpoena your bank records.