411NSIDER: Mangia VINDICATED in Wiercinski vs Mangia

April 29th, 2014 by Dick Johnson

Mangia NYC

41INSIDER: Mangia VINDICATED in Final Decision of Wiercinski vs Mangia (aka The “Nazi Deli” Hoax)

 

 

 

Uh yeeah what have we been saying all along?!
What’s that— you don’t remember?
Oh! Well please, let us remind you!

You may recall we last left fraudster and extortionist Adam Wiercinski aka Adam Jamroz idiotically gloating about his so-called “victory” over his former employer, Mangia LLC.

As you know, when many many many media outlets erronerously reported a jury "award" of $900,000.00 having been granted to fraudster and extortionist Adam Wiercinski aka Adam Jamroz, WE here at PX This boldly and vehemently presented the FACTS and TRANSCRIPTS in the face of a veritable tidal wave of libelous media coverage.

For all our judicious, righteous, moral, truthful, and ethical efforts, we were rewarded with

oh right, nothing. Hah, less than nothing! Despite PX This being the ONLY public source of OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPTS from the trial, PX This was still accused of somehow being "biased," "conspiratorial," and "crazy" by several stupid, gullible, wholly uninfomed, willfully ignorant trolls at The Huffington Post, The New York Post, New York magazine, Fox News, The Washington Times, The International Business Times, Gothamist, Yelp, etc etc etc.

But whatever! Cuz GUESS WHAT.
The wait is over mutherfukkers, and fraudster extortionist Adam Wiercinski aka Adam Jamroz LOST. Gee whiz, justice prevailing, imagine that!

IN YOUR FACE, BITCHES.
fuyou_1

* * *

 

We were actually just gonna leave it at that, but then we gave the 35+ page FINAL DECISION a good read. And ha ha ha hooo boy it’s a real doozy.

Since we know PDFs can be a real drag sometimes, we decided to copy down some of the best most entertaining parts. Seriously though, ya just gotta, they’re HILARIOUS.

• • •

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
———————————————-x
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 09 CV 4413 (ILG)
ADAM WIERCINSKI,
Plaintiff,
-against-
MANGIA 57, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
———————————————-x

The litigation history reflect[s]…
Extensive pretrial activity presided over by Magistrate Judge Orenstein during the next few years led to a Stipulation of Partial Dismissal With Prejudice… by the terms of which all individual defendants were dismissed and all causes of action were dismissed excepting the claim for hostile work environment based on religion and hostile work environment…

After approximately 17 months of seemingly never-ending pretrial stumbling over one obstacle or another, a jury was selected and the trial commenced on October 21 and concluded on October 23, 2013. The jury returned a verdict finding supervisor responsibility for a hostile work environment for which the defendant employer was held liable and awarded plaintiff no compensatory damages, nominal damages of $1 and punitive damages in the amount of $900,000

The Court is impelled to set out at some length, portions of the cross-examination of this witness which can only be seen as casting an ominous shadow on the tale he told on his direct examination. The very first question put to him presaged what was to follow and represented the brazen essence of his testimony.

Q: Mr. Wiercinski, when you were working at Mangia, did you get paid using a different name?
A: At this time, I would like to ask the jury and Your Honor to permit me to use the Fifth Amendment because I believe that to answer this question it may incriminate me.

huh

Q: Mr. Wiercinski, did you get paid under a different name in order to conceal income from the United States government?
A: At this time, Your Honor and members of the jury, I would like to seek the refuge behind the Fifth Amendment and respectfully decline to answer the question on the ground it may incriminate me.

dry

Q: Finally, on that particular issue, did you conceal – did you desire to conceal your income from the United States Government so that you could obtain benefits from the Social Security system that you were not entitled to?
A: Your Honor and members of the jury, at this time I would like to seek the refuge behind the Fifth Amendment and respectfully decline to answer this question on the ground it may incriminate me.

rolleye0014

Q: Mr. Wiercinski, do you recall providing sworn testimony at an administrative hearing related to this litigation?
A: At this time, I would like to seek the refuge behind the Fifth Amendment and respectfully decline to answer this question on the ground that it may incriminate me.

blink

Q: I would like to read to you, Mr. Wiercinski, your answer to these questions
from that administrative hearing. Page 196, line 9:
“QUESTION: “ —

THE COURT: Excuse me. Before you get to that, do I understand that you are asserting your Fifth Amendment right to respond whether you were or were not deposed at a prior occasion? Is that what you are taking the Fifth Amendment to?
laugh

THE WITNESS: Yes.

 

Q: Mr. Wiercinski, in that same proceeding which you were under oath, did you provide this answer to this question. It was a question by the Court in that case:
“THE COURT: So your purpose was to have the income shown in someone else’s name so that the governmental agency wouldn’t know that you were making that income?
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: “Yes?”
THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.”
Do you recall that question and that answer that you provided at this proceeding?
A: At this time, I would like to seek the refuge behind the Fifth Amendment.

Q: This is the final question that I have for you on this issue, Mr. Wiercinski. And I understand how you responded to these questions, but the final question on the Social Security issue is this. How much did you receive in Social Security benefits while you were receiving income under the name of Adam Jamroz at Mangia?
A: At this time, I would like to seek the refuge behind the Fifth Amendment and actually decline to answer this question on the ground that it may incriminate me.

Q: Mr. Wiercinski, in the year 2006 you filed a tax return with the U.S. Government, is that correct?
A: I do not recall.
And after being shown the relevant document:
Q: Mr. Wiercinski, does that refresh your recollection that you filed a return in 2006?
A: At this time, I would like to seek the refuge behind the Fifth Amendment and respectfully decline to answer the question on the ground that it may incriminate me.

Q: Did you report your Mangia income in 2006 to the United States Government?
A: At this time, I would like to seek the refuge behind the Fifth Amendment and respectfully decline to answer this question on the ground that it may incriminate me.
Q: Mr. Wiercinski, rather than ask you a separate question for each of the successive years, I am going to ask you, do you recall filing returns for 2008, 2009, and 2010?
A: At this time, I would like to seek the refuge behind the Fifth Amendment and respectfully decline to answer this question on the ground that it may incriminate me.
Q: Finally, on this topic, Mr. Wiercinski, for those years, 2008, 2009 and 2010, did you report your income, your Mangia income to the United States Government?
A: At this time, I would like to seek the refuge behind the Fifth Amendment and respectfully decline to answer this question on the ground that it may incriminate me.

Q: In your early years at Mangia when you were working full-time in Mangia, and I am asking now separate and apart from the Social Security issues, did you receive public assistance?
A: At this time, I would like to seek the refuge behind the Fifth Amendment and respectfully decline to answer the question on the ground that it may incriminate me.
Q: The final question on this issue. At that time, were you working under and were you receiving your wages under the name, the fictitious name, Adam Jamroz to conceal your income so you could obtain the public benefit?
A: At this time, I would like to seek the refuge behind the Fifth Amendment and respectfully decline to answer the question on the ground that it may incriminate me.

Q: But you also didn’t – Mr. Wiercinski, all these years of harassment that you’re claiming went from 1999 all the way up to 2007, correct, eight years of what you’re claiming was this constant abuse, you never looked for another job, did you?
A: At this time I would like to respectfully decline to answer this question onthe ground that it may incriminate me.

Q: Again, you remember testifying, Mr. Wiercinski, at a hearing, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: I’m going to ask if you recall this question and this answer, page 207, line 25: “QUESTION: Now, after not being rehired by Mangia 57, what did you do for a living? ANSWER: Well, I went to the location Cucina that occupied the Mangia 56 location when Cucina took over. And I asked for a job. and they hired me, you know, for a couple – for approximately March 2008 until I left.” You answered that question at the hearing.
A: At this time, I would like to seek the refuge behind the Fifth Amendment and respectfully decline to answer this question on the ground that it may incriminate me.
Q: Are you seeking that refuge because you continued, during that time, to hide the Cucina income from the United States Government?
MR. MORIARTY: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A: At this time, I would like to seek the refuge behind the Fifth Amendmenton the grounds that it may incriminate me.

Q: You were seeking to hide the income at that time when your worked at Cucina because you were obtaining Social Security benefits to which you were not entitled, correct?
A: At this time, I would like to seek the refuge behind the Fifth Amendment and respectfully decline to answer this question on the ground that it may incriminate me.

• • •

OMG IT GOES ON FOREVER LIKE THIS, WE ARE GETTING CARPAL TUNNELS. So if you are really interested, just read that shit for yourself. We dare you. We double dog dare you.

 

Until then, here are the rest of the most awesome highlights from the greatest specimen of your tax dollars at work within our United States "judicial" system! Aww yeah play that funky music white boy:

“A court may grant a motion as a matter of law notwithstanding the verdict if it finds that a reasonable jury did not have a legally sufficient basis to find for the claimant.”
cool

Having seen and heard the witnesses and having a firm hold on and not merely a feel, for every jot and tittle of this case, I am driven to the determination that a judgment entered for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, is the only determination that reasonable and fair-minded persons could arrive at and to do less would be to endorse a gross miscarriage of justice.
bravo

I have set out in detail portions of Wiercinski’s testimony which includes his persistent, and questionable, assertions of his Fifth Amendment privilege and portions of his testimony, the “feel” of which is virtually palpable merely seeing it on the printed page. It was his testimony upon which the case rested. A judicious determination of this motion compels a meaningful consideration of his assertions of privilege which strikes at the heart of the case.

An affirmation of the privilege inviolate in this case is to portray the mythical lady slyly winking as she holds the unbalanced scales of justice and to emasculate the time honored understanding that a person places his credibility in issue when he elects to testify.

It would burden this opinion unduly to assemble every transcript colloquy that has an illuminating bearing on truthfulness. [Wooo you aint kidding, Big Daddy.]

To make an award of punitive damages assumes there is a justifiable basis for making it to begin with. The punitive damages award was against the defendant Mangia. There isn’t a scintilla of evidence that Mangia harbored any malice towards Wiercinski or was recklessly indifferent to the working environment in their facilities. On the contrary… That Wiercinski was harassed at all may be doubted given his request that he be assigned to work with the person he alleged was harassing him and continued to work with him for years.
groupwave

The defendant’s motion for a judgment pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted.
The defendant’s motion in the alternative for a judgment pursuant to Rules 50(c) and 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted.
The motion by plaintiff’s counsel for counsel fees is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
April 28, 2014

your-mama

 

 

See also:
BEWARE THE DELIVERY BOY GRIFTER
411NSIDER: Wiercinski vs Mangia
Adam Wiercinski: Fraudster / Extortionist

 

MANGIA WINS LAWSUIT, ADAM WIERCINSKI COMMITS PERJURY AGAINST MANGIA 57, MANGIA 48, MANGIA NYC – FILES FALLACIOUS LAWSUIT

Tags: , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “411NSIDER: Mangia VINDICATED in Wiercinski vs Mangia”

  1. Dishwasher Says:

    Congratulations!!!! With all the tip-stealing lawsuits that have been going on, it’s nice to see a restaurant WIN for a change!! :D

    Never doubted it for a second….

  2. Dick Johnson (PX This) Says:

    @Dishwasher

    We are very happy that Mangia has finally and ultimately prevailed, just as we always knew they would.

    However, THE FAT LADY HASN’T SUNG UNTIL THAT LYING MALICIOUS FRAUDSTER PIECE OF SHIT HAS BEEN INDICTED BY THE US ATTORNEY FOR FRAUD.

    :)

  3. Inkslinger Says:

    I just read all 37 pages of the Final Decision, and wow! It IS hilarious! I love the part where the judge says that Wiercinski’s 3 witnesses all seem “rehearsed” and fake. :D

  4. abbe Says:

    CONGRATULATIONS, MANGIA! :)

    Can’t help but notice though, weren’t there about seven Google pages worth of international press articles all wrongfully condemning Mangia when this asshole went spreading his entirely FRAUDULENT lawsuit around?

    And now that Mangia is 100% vindicated, what’s that I hear?

    Oh right, sounds like CRICKETS.

  5. Dick Johnson Says:

    Aaand that’s why people hate the media.

    That and the “Coco Scales” New York Times thing.

    And the Jay McInerney New York magazine thing.

    And the many Gawker things.

    And all that Eater bullshit.

    And… ugh forget it, I’d be here all day.

  6. Jackie Says:

    Exactly, thank you!!! UGGGH I am so disgusted by the media. All they cared about was the sensationalism, all those LIES!!!! This story spread like wildfire when they thought that Mangia was guilty, but they now they won’t do anything to make up for their SHADY REPORTING that endangered the jobs of hundreds of innocent people??!!!

    I swear, I hope they all get hit by busses.

Leave a Reply

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

Filed Under: CHOKE ON THIS