2016 case against Maiocco DENIED
Creepy Maiocco wins one case, but for past egregious sins he loses in the court of public opinion.
________________________________
01/17/2016
Customer Dispute - Denied
|
||
Allegations
Client
alleges he told FA he could not afford to lose on his investments and
that the FA assured him as such. (03/01/2010-12/04/2014)
Damage Amount Requested
$90,000.00
| ||
However, the gross ex Council President should NEVER have handled the city budget.
Disgusting that his fellow councilors never knew what an alleged churning swindler the public believes the rat bastard to be.
Churning:
Hypothetical Delusional Example
Let's say someone sues an unethical public access TV station and then decides to drop his suit. BUT, the lawyer still wants to make money no matter what the risk to his client.
If a lawyer tries to keep a suit alive even when the plaintiff is dismissing his own case, a lawyer arguing to KEEP A SUIT ALIVE against his own client, which you can find some kind of case like that up at Brian Burke's Middlesex Superior Court if you look hard enough, this delusional blog wouldn't know, but if you do find one, it might be considered CHURNING.
All alleged nasty swindlers are innocent until proven guilty, Uncle Bob. But since you are in the biz, maybe you can give a speech on what you know about churning???