Just Saying

October 24th, 2013 by Dick Johnson

Justice is blind and therefore slow.



** UPDATED 4/29/14 **
Mangia VINDICATED in Final Verdict of Wiercinski vs Mangia

"Punitive damages are usually reserved for when the defendant has displayed actual intent to cause harm (such as purposefully rear-ending someone else’s car), rather than in cases of mere negligence…

Punitive damages are a focal point of the tort reform debate in the United States, where numerous highly publicized multi-million dollar verdicts have led to a fairly common perception that punitive damage awards tend to be excessive. However, statistical studies by law professors and the Department of Justice have found that punitive damages are only awarded in two percent of civil cases which go to trial, and that the median punitive damage award is between $38,000 and $50,000.

There is no maximum dollar amount of punitive damages that a defendant can be ordered to pay. In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is high enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety, and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional."

"At common law, damages are categorized into compensatory damages and punitive damages. Compensatory damages are further categorized into special damages, which are economic losses such as loss of earnings, property damage and medical expenses, and general damages, which are noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering and emotional distress.

Compensatory damages, called actual damages, are paid to compensate the claimant for loss, injury, or harm suffered as a result of (see requirement of causation) another’s breach of duty. (e.g., in a negligence claim under tort law).

Punitive damages are awarded only in special cases where conduct was egregiously invidious and are over and above the amount of compensatory damages, such as in the event of malice or intent. Great judicial restraint is expected to be exercised in their application. In the United States punitive damages awards are subject to the limitations imposed by the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.


A source with close knowledge of the case in question agreed to speak "off the cuff" under the stipulations that neither his name nor the names of any/all attorneys involved be disclosed:

"Unfortunately, the law often provides loopholes through which legal mistakes can be made, [or] we wouldn’t be here at all… An award of one dollar [$1.00] for compensatory damages and $900,000.00 for punitive damages is a clear indication of a muddled, disordered jury which is unfamiliar with the law. Obviously, the punitive award should and will be appealed. The judge has also stated during trial that he will recommend the plaintiff be scrutinized by the federal District Attorney… for fraud."


[Emphasis ours; all.]


UPDATE: A statement from attorney Daniel Kaiser confirms: "Adam Wiercinski aka Adam Jamroz was awarded $1.00 dollar [ONE DOLLAR] in compensatory damages; the $900K punitive award is unsustainable. We can and will seek to vacate the jury verdict. Wiercinski/Jamroz, the plaintiff in a civil case, invoked the Fifth Amendment several times during cross-examination in an attempt to prevent the incrimination of himself

[To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer any question because "the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked" lead a claimant to possess a "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer", believing that "a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.Wikipedia]

… The act of a PLAINTIFF, under oath, refusing to answer questions in a CIVIL suit in order to protect himself from criminal charges was so egregious that Judge Leo Glasser recommended during trial that Wiercinski’s prior testimony be investigated by the Federal District Attorney’s office.

Mangia presented five witnesses [several of whom are Jewish themselves and/or were employed by Mangia at the time], to refute the charges. Contemporaneous and current Mangia employee Robert Ranfranz testified under oath that Wiercinski had approached him and offered him monetary compensation to falsify his testimony. The $1.00 compensatory award reflects Wiercinski’s lack of credibility. The $900K punitive award for the ‘corroborating testimony’ of Wiercinski’s three witnesses is nominal and cannot be sustained under the Constitution.”

** UPDATED 4/29/14 **
Mangia VINDICATED in Final Verdict of Wiercinski vs Mangia

See also:



Tags: , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Just Saying”

  1. Dick Johnosn, PX This Says:

    Interestingly, it has come our attention that comments made by Abbe Diaz personally at both New York magazine and the New York Post linking to the insider information provided here were REMOVED.

    As far as we know, the New York DAILY NEWS was the ONLY media outlet to CORRECTLY report (in print) that a compensatory award of ONE DOLLAR was the result of the lawsuit in question.

  2. Dishwasher Says:

    Oh god not this again.

    Ok so from what I gather Mangia can’t say anything until after the appeal, and the DA makes an indictment for fraud against Wercinski??

    But why does the media keep messing this up?? Didn’t they ask to see the official verdict before they went to press?? Do they not know the diff between punitive and compense??? It’s all the same BS all over again.

  3. Dick Johnson Says:

    That is kind of the problem. Plus the official verdict is still not accessible to the public, but the press should have asked to see it before making the same “mistakes” again. Unless they did it on purpose just for the sake of sensationalism.

    Here is the document explaining how Wiercinski/Jamroz was able to file the claim in FEDERAL court after it was dismissed from both the STATE and CITY courts.

    Abbe is trying to get clearance to post the exact quotes from the lawyers about the judge re: his recommendation during trial that Wiercinski should be investigated by the federal DA for fraud.

  4. Insklinger (PX This) Says:

    Abbs is trying to get the transcript from the trial.

    The problem is that alot of people don’t understand “legalese,” so it could also be that the press is just stupid.

    Since the verdict was clearly that the compensatory award was $1.00, then a punitive award of a total of $3.00 would be considered the maximum allowable under the Constitution.

    Funny how nobody in the press bothers to mention that. Sensationalism or Stupidity? You decide.

Leave a Reply

[in an effort to avoid "spam," comments with URLs are subject to pre-approval]

Filed Under: CHOKE ON THIS