Started By
Message
More on Mike Maggio (geauxjudge)
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:30 am
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:30 am
From Blue Hog Report, the blog that broke the Mike Maggio story:
Read more here: LINK /
In case of tl;dr: the guy who owned a nursing home that had a $5.2 million judgment against it bought Mike Maggio by setting up PACs and funneling money to him. Most of those PACs only sent money to Maggio, and the PACs were registered the same day that Maggio decided to have a hearing to lower the jury award of $5.2 million. When it was time for the hearing, Maggio reduced the award to the exact amount that the nursing home owner's insurance would cover, meaning that the nursing home owner paid nothing besides the amount he funneled to Maggio.
quote:
Having a plan to funnel money into your Court of Appeals race go into effect the exact same day that you decide to hold a hearing on whether to reduce a jury award. Oh, and also where the person who enacts the money-funneling plan was the owner of the nursing home against whom the jury award had been imposed.
Let’s back up...
Read more here: LINK /
In case of tl;dr: the guy who owned a nursing home that had a $5.2 million judgment against it bought Mike Maggio by setting up PACs and funneling money to him. Most of those PACs only sent money to Maggio, and the PACs were registered the same day that Maggio decided to have a hearing to lower the jury award of $5.2 million. When it was time for the hearing, Maggio reduced the award to the exact amount that the nursing home owner's insurance would cover, meaning that the nursing home owner paid nothing besides the amount he funneled to Maggio.
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 8:33 am
5
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:49 am to Hog on the Hill
Dude is fricked
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:49 am to Pigfeet
Can they lock him up for this? I hope so.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 9:22 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Can they lock him up for this? I hope so.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 9:28 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Can they lock him up for this? I hope so.
I would think so, has to be tampering of some sort, so the Judge could be removed, disbarred, and the nursing home owner brought up on charges of bribing an official etc.
The more that comes out on this guy, the more I have to believe he is a tRant allstar all the rantards want to grow up to be like.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 9:29 am to DaleDenton
Also, I would think his decision would be over-turned and the award amount restored to the jury's original amount.
I would think, but I'm no lawyer.
I would think, but I'm no lawyer.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 9:46 am to DaleDenton
My media law professor talked about this case yesterrday. One of the few interesting things thats happened in that class
Posted on 3/12/14 at 9:58 am to Hog on the Hill
They were talking about the geauxjudge last night at my cousin's birthday party 
Posted on 3/12/14 at 10:47 am to Pigfeet
quote:
Dude is fricked
So fricked. Given that he's now essentially being accused of taking de facto bribes to reduce verdicts of business interests, he might end up facing jail time.
Who would have thought that him being outed as a message board slimeball/blabbermouth was just the tip of the iceberg?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 10:48 am to Hog on the Hill
It will be near impossible to prove quid pro quo. Nothing will come of this part of the scandal.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 11:27 am to Hog on the Hill
I heard Saturday that Maggio was going down whether that article had come out about his message board activity or not. He evidently has pissed of the wrong people in Conway too many times. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more stories to come.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 11:28 am to WaveHog
Um, you think judges are allowed to rule on cases involving people who donate to them?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 11:38 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
In case of tl;dr: the guy who owned a nursing home that had a $5.2 million judgment against it bought Mike Maggio by setting up PACs and funneling money to him. Most of those PACs only sent money to Maggio, and the PACs were registered the same day that Maggio decided to have a hearing to lower the jury award of $5.2 million. When it was time for the hearing, Maggio reduced the award to the exact amount that the nursing home owner's insurance would cover, meaning that the nursing home owner paid nothing besides the amount he funneled to Maggio.
If that pans out to be true, he's in deep trouble.
Even if another court determines that the $1,000,000.00 is just compensation for the compensatory damages, he's in trouble.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 11:39 am to Killean
quote:
Um, you think judges are allowed to rule on cases involving people who donate to them?
Yes.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 11:59 am to WaveHog
This is straight up bribery. The Arkansas statute for 'abuse of public trust':
Assuming what is posted on the Blue Hog Report is true, I would think the case against this guy would be strong. But I'm not a lawyer.
Do you really need a confession or witness testimony to get a conviction in a case like this? Is circumstantial evidence not enough? Because the circumstantial evidence is damning.
quote:LINK
Subtitle 5 - Offenses Against The Administration Of Government
Chapter 52 - Corruption in Public Office
§ 5-52-101 - Abuse of public trust.
5-52-101. Abuse of public trust.
(a) A person commits the offense of abuse of public trust if the person:
(1) Solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept on behalf of any person, political party, or other organization any benefit from another person upon an agreement or understanding that the other person will or may be appointed a public servant or designated or nominated as a candidate for public office;
(2) Offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit and the receipt of the benefit is prohibited by this section;
(3) Solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit as compensation or consideration for having as a public servant given a decision, opinion, recommendation, or vote favorable to another or for having otherwise exercised his or her discretion in favor of another; or
(4) Offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit upon a public servant and the receipt of the benefit is prohibited by this section.
(b) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or use of discretion, except for the benefit, was otherwise proper.
(c) Abuse of public trust is a Class D felony.
Assuming what is posted on the Blue Hog Report is true, I would think the case against this guy would be strong. But I'm not a lawyer.
Do you really need a confession or witness testimony to get a conviction in a case like this? Is circumstantial evidence not enough? Because the circumstantial evidence is damning.
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:11 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Do you really need a confession or witness testimony to get a conviction in a case like this? Is circumstantial evidence not enough? Because the circumstantial evidence is damning.
Yes, you need more than circumstantial evidence. They will need to prove quid pro quo, which (I think, anyways) will be hard to do.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:16 pm to WaveHog
They don't have to prove that to remove him from the bench and disbar him however.
The circumstantial evidence alone is enough to do that especially since he didn't disclose any conflicts of interest in making his ruling.
He will never be a judge or lawyer again based on this.
The circumstantial evidence alone is enough to do that especially since he didn't disclose any conflicts of interest in making his ruling.
He will never be a judge or lawyer again based on this.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:23 pm to Killean
quote:
They don't have to prove that to remove him from the bench and disbar him however.
The circumstantial evidence alone is enough
You sure about that?
quote:
especially since he didn't disclose any conflicts of interest in making his ruling.
Money was funneled through PACs, how is he supposed to know he even got money from that person? And on the day of his ruling, even.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:28 pm to WaveHog
quote:
Money was funneled through PACs, how is he supposed to know he even got money from that person? And on the day of his ruling, even.
So you expect a normal reasonable person to conclude all this happening was just a coincidence when he reduced the award to the exact amount insurance would pay?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 12:46 pm to DaleDenton
quote:
So you expect a normal reasonable person to conclude all this happening was just a coincidence when he reduced the award to the exact amount insurance would pay?
insurance limitations are the very first thing a plaintiff's attorney asks a defendant for in a tort trial. (edit: not sure of admissability at trial, and i'm not sure if it was disclosed. but i will say a nice round number like $1 million seems like a number someone would choose to award)
i think a reasonable person can look at it and conclude that a business owner decided to fund the campaign of a business-friendly judge without that judge's explicit knowledge.
don't get me wrong, i think this guy is scummy, i think his decision to lower the award (based on the little i know) is flat out wrong, and that the timing of the donations looks bad on its face. all i'm saying is, don't be surprised if this bribe claim doesn't go anywhere barring new revelations.
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 12:58 pm
Page 1 of 5
Latest Arkansas News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News