A comprehensive 14-page motion for summary judgment in the suit filed by M&M Wrecker and Service of Prescott against the Nevada County Quorum Court was filed at the Nevada County courthouse on Friday, June 29.

A comprehensive 14-page motion for summary judgment in the suit filed by M&M Wrecker and Service  of Prescott against the Nevada County Quorum Court was filed at the Nevada County courthouse on Friday, June 29.
The motion asked the suit against the Nevada County Quorum Court be dismissed with prejudice, and also contained a section that expressly requested that the court dismiss the charges against George S. Smith, District 8 justice of the peace. The request for summary judgment was filed by Ralph C. Ohm of Hot Springs, attorney for the county.
The suit was filed in July 2017 by Donny and Nicky McGuire, M&M owners, and followed a presentation by Smith in May about the need for the court members to take a more active roll in reviewing large item purchases by the county.
In the filing, Ohm used multiple case laws that cited immunity for the court members from such suits and asked the court to dismiss all claims.
Additionally, the filing makes note of a key fact the filing states “…George Smith never mentioned or identified the Plaintiffs concerning this transactions...(but) it was one of the Plaintiffs, Donny McGuire … that … identified themselves as subject of the transaction involving the road grader.”
The filing also noted that “None of the statements contained in a newspaper article was false, misleading, nor did they cast the Plaintiffs in any type of negative light.”
Further, “Smith made a post on Facebook in which he outlined his concerns and the need for the county to regain control over spending. Nothing in the post has any type of false statements….”
In one section, Ohm asked the court to give summary judgment against all members of the court, with the exception of Smith, which he noted appeared to be the only JP with which the plaintiffs have a problem. First, the motion noted that case law gives immunity from tort action. The motion stated that in order to be successful, the McGuires would have to prove that every member of the court made defamatory statement.
In a separate section, Ohm then requested that the court dismiss the case in regard to Smith for the same reason, and then said, “As a member of the (court)…it is clearly within George Smith’s authority, responsibility and duty to attempt to make sure that money that is appropriated by the Quorum Curt is spent wisely.”
In a statement after the filing on Friday, Smith said, “In my career as a newspaperman, I have read and reported on hundreds of court filings. In my experience, this filing by the quorum court’s attorney is one of the best, the most thoughtful and well researched I have ever seen.”
Smith said it is still his opinion that the suit was filed for simple harassment purposes and the McGuire brothers “were looking for a settlement. From Day 1, despite some early talk about a settlement, there was not going to be a settlement because no one had done anything wrong.”
Smith said the filing was “the first shot in a one-sided feud.” Smith has since been arrested for harassment (a misdemeanor) and charged by Nicky McGuire for “being on M&M property,” going through courthouse records” and other activities.
Smith said he had never been on M&M property and although he was arrested, he has never been charged and predicted if he is charged “a summary judgment filing is a certainty.” Additionally, he noted, that by Arkansas, any changes filed against an individual that results in an arrest and then those charges are proven fraudulent, “that is a felony.”
He noted that his years as an investigative reporter prepared him for understanding the rights of ordinary citizens in looking into the business of governmental entities.
“A mistake was made when I was arrested,” Smith said. “I am going to work to rectify that mistake, clear my name and make sure this miscarriage of justice is overturned.”
Smith, of the Sutton community, is running for re-election in the November election and has drawn Chris Fore of Laneburg as an opponent.
The specific case he pointed to was a purchase by the county of a used road grader from “a local business.” Smith did not mention the business name during his presentation.
Smith, who has a Master’s degree in business, advised the court in its monthly meeting the county had recently purchased a “2013” used motor grader from a ‘local company” for $122,000. Under court rules at the time, there was no provision for review by the court of such purchases.
Smith, reading from a prepared report, told the court that the grader was actually a 2012 model and had been bought for $97,000 by a “local business,” which sold it for a $25,000 profit. Smith noted in his presentation that it was a good deal for the company but reflected badly on the fiduciary oversight by the court in ensuring tax dollars are wisely spent.
That presentation resulted in the judge, acting on Smith’s motions and approved by the court, appointing a three-person committee to review all equipment purchases and setting a total of $20,000 that could be expended by the county judge.