Cruise Bruise

James Hausman Jury Award Vacated
Washington District Judge Reverses $21.5 Million

Jilted Former Employee Tells Holland America Line Truth After Jury Verdict

 

 

 

Judge: James Hausman Not Credible
Washington District Judge Reverses $21.5 Million Jury Award

Hausman Jilted Former Employee Tells Holland America Line, The Real Story After Jury Verdict.

 

Motion to Vacate James Hausman $21.5 Million Jury Award Ruling

This article is a follow up to James Hausman Gold Dealer Private Investigator - Sues Holland America Line

Court documents outline why the jury verdict was over-turned by U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein. In her decision, Judge Rothstein agreed with Holland America Line's collection of facts which point to Hausman tampering with evidence, destroying evidence, tampering with potential witnesses including his own mother, lied and deliberately mislead the court and the jury to the extent of his injuries. The Motion to Vacate Verdict includes the following facts as outlined by U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein.

Credibility of Amy Mizeur

The credibility of former Hausman personal assistant, Amy Mizeur, was called into question after she produced emails between her and James Hausman which contradict Hausman's degree of injury claims and produced evidence for the trial which Hausman had deliberately destroyed. Her statements were dismissed as a "disgruntled employee" who was fired after stealing, forging Hausman's name on a company check, which she wrote to herself.

Mizeur said in rebuttal, Hausman gave her permission to take one of his checks, make it out to herself for the amount she needed, and sign his name. Mizeur said that Hausman frequently gave her money, almost always in cash, as much as $5000 at a time. When confronted with the emails in which she threatened to ruin Mr. Hausman’s life unless he “paid her off,” she admitted that she wrote them, but explained that it was done out of shock and anger at being falsely accused of a crime and fired as a result. Mizeur testified that yes, she was angry with Hausman and threatened to ruin him after he terminated her. She even testified that Mr. Hausman promised to provide for her financially in the event of his death.

Mizeur testified that Mr. Hausman took out a credit card in both of their names so that she could use it “to help me, you know, if I needed gas, or if my son needed something, I needed something.” She further testified that if she was unable to pay the credit card bill, Mr. Hausman would pay it. Mizeur said that Mr. Hausman was very concerned that the other Gold Center employees not find out about the check he claimed as grounds for her termination, particularly Josh Fieldbinder who had access to Mr. Hausman’s checkbooks. It is for this reason, Ms. Mizeur explained, that she took a check from the middle of the checkbook, rather than the next one in sequence because Hausman said "don’t let Fieldbinder find out.”

Rothstein writes, "The Court finds it significant that Ms. Mizeur has consistently stated that Mr. Hausman gave her permission to write the check. In an email from Ms. Mizeur to Mr. Hausman dated April 6, 2015 (“You said yes Amy do what u have to do just don’t let Fieldbinder know and we will deal with it when I get home.”) In a Facebook message from Ms. Mizeur to Mr. Hausman dated April 10, 2015 (“You gave me permission to write that check … so I’m in no way concerned about that.”) Likewise, it is telling that Plaintiff did not involve the police when he allegedly discovered that Ms. Mizeur stole money from him. In short, this Court finds Ms. Mizeur to be a truthful witness."


Credibility of James Hausman

Rothstein's decision states, "The same cannot be said for Mr. Hausman. As a witness, he came across evasive and untrustworthy. He appeared to weigh each answer, not for its truthfulness, but to assess whether it would damage his case. Mr. Hausman also seemed to capitalize on his alleged brain injury when it was convenient for him. He was confused or claimed memory loss when confronted with a question or exhibit that appeared to undermine his claims, yet was animated and full of information when his testimony supported his case.

In addition, Mr. Hausman’s testimony is undermined by his own words, as evidenced by the emails that Ms. Mizeur was able to recover from her computer and phone. For instance, during the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Hausman denied that he was or had been romantically interested in Ms. Mizeur, but rather, indicated a strictly professional relationship. Yet, Mr. Hausman consistently sent Ms. Mizeur emails that contained physically intimate details that belie his testimony. A mild example of this is an email Mr. Hausman sent to Ms. Mizeur on January 14, 2014: “if you wake up at 2 in the morning, please call me. What is wrong? Outside of me being an asshole.” These emails do not evidence a strict employer/employee relationship.

Likewise, the newly revealed emails expose grave inconsistencies with Mr. Hausman’s trial testimony and cast doubt on his veracity. For instance, Mr. Hausman testified during the trial that he avoids using ladders because he is “[a]fraid of falling and hurting [himself] again.” However, his own email tells a very different story: I spent most of the day on a 10’ later [sic], with a fire axe chopping off the ice that had accumulated over the front porch of the house, followed by the garage hose, on hot water to melt the ice, followed by a couple of avalanches of snow and ice off of the roof, followed by me scooping the snow and ice of [sic] of the walk way. Some of the ice was 15” thick, very heavy to pick up or scoop. I am pretty sore. Every where [sic].”

According to Ms. Mizeur, she witnessed Mr. Hausman: (1) carry heavy loads (i.e., bags of coins, luggage, metal shelving), (2) participate in physical activities such a refinishing a wood floor, (3) climb ladders and steep stairs without difficulty, (4) drive over 500 miles at a time, (5) sit in loud bars and restaurants without being disturbed by the noise, (6) cook meals, (7) drive and load a boat onto its trailer, (8) successfully navigate rocky beaches, and (9) load and unload heavy equipment from his vehicle. Each of these indicates normal activity and is at variance with Mr. Hauman’s slow, unsteady demeanor at the trial and evidentiary hearing.

Mr. Hausman also changed his testimony when it suited his case. For instance, as stated above, Mr. Hausman testified during the trial that he avoids climbing ladders due to his alleged balance issue.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Ms. Mizeur is a credible witness and Mr. Hausman is not. Applying this finding to Ms. Mizeur’s allegations, the Court concludes that Ms. Mizeur testified truthfully when she stated that she witnessed Mr. Hausman delete the emails and Mr. Hausman was not truthful when he denied deleting the emails. Likewise, the Court does not find credible Mr. Hausman’s assertion that the approximately sixty emails Defendants produced from his[second email account] account were not produced because he had deleted them prior to Defendants’ discovery request pursuant to his routine practice of deleting emails.

Plaintiff claims that he did not disclose the [second email account] account because he only used it for a couple of months at the end of 2013/beginning of 2014 and he had forgotten about it by the time this Court ordered him to produce his emails in February 2015. However, this explanation is called into question by his own words. For instance, on December 7, 2013 Mr. Hausman wrote the following email to Ms. Mizeur from [second email account]: “Amy, Just [sic] sent you a BS message on Hotmail. Someone was asking how I was communicating with you.” In another email to Ms. Mizeur, he writes: “Do not use the Gold Center email, [sic] to send messages. THEY CAN AND PROBABLY ARE BEING VIEWED.” These are not statements of an individual who simply “forgot” about the existence of an email account; rather, they evidence a concerted effort to hide its existence. Indeed, after Defendants brought the existence of [second email account] email to light, Mr. Hausman produced an email from that account that allegedly he was able to recover just before the evidentiary hearing. The email is to Mr. Hausman’s mother in which he raves about Ms. Mizeur’s virtues. Id. At the conclusion of the email he states: “[a]fter you get this, I would ask that you read it, understand it, and then destroy it.”

Indeed, just the one document produced by Mr. Hausman from his yahoo account—the email to his mother—provides a treasure trove of information. For instance, it reveals that his wife’s behavior may be the cause of Mr. Hausman’s alleged symptoms (stating that Ms. Hausman’s “pack rat” tendencies sends him into “convulsions/shaking”), that Ms. Mizeur was intimately involved in his daily life (stating that Ms. Mizeur “is like [his] left arm”), and, perhaps most importantly, it reveals that Mr. Hausman takes tranquilizers (stating that he has “to take tranquilizers to go home”). While, admittedly, this letter does not contain one of the Court ordered search terms, the Court is not willing to assume that it would not have been produced had Mr. Hausman not sabotaged Defendants’ discovery efforts.

Ms. Mizeur also testified that when Mr. Hausman prepared her for her interview with Defendants’ attorneys, he ordered her to lie about the amount of alcohol he consumes on a daily basis and the fact that he was staying in local hotels instead of living at home. She also claimed that Mr. Hausman “insisted on sitting in the office and secretly listening to [her] when [she] was interviewed by telephone” by Defendants’ attorneys. She further alleged that during the interview, he would “signal [her] not to say any more or to be quiet when he thought [she] was saying too much.” It is this trial judge’s [U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein] responsibility to ensure that a party is not the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Based on the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, this trial judge concludes that a miscarriage of justice occurred in this case."

This case investigation is still evolving as Hausman may request a new trial. However, given the new revelations provided by Amy Mizeur after the verdict, it would seem to be a waste of time. We also have hope that Holland America Line will file a lawsuit against Hausman for the cost of defending this outrageous lawsuit at the jury trial. If you have any information which can help the public understand any portion of this event more clearly, please contact us.

Judge Over-Turns James Hausman v Holland America Line $21.5 Million Jury Award (pdf file):
  • Judge Over-Turns James Hausman v Holland America Line $21.5 Million Jury Award

  • Cruise Bruise Investigates: Article Resources (pdf files):
  • James Hausman's Wife - Carol King 5 Interview
  • James Hausman v Holland America Line - Complaint
  • James Hausman v Holland America Line - Complaint Amended
  • James Hausman v Holland America Line Answer
  • James Hausman v Holland America Line Exhibit A
  • James Hausman v Holland America Line Exhibits List
  • James Hausman v Holland America Line Motion For Leave
  • James Hausman v Holland America Line Motion To Compel Discovery
  • James Hausman v Holland America Line Order Partial Summary Judgement June 3 2015
  • James Hausman v Holland America Line Protective Order
  • James Hausman v Holland America Line Jury Instruction Objection
  • James Hausman v Holland America Line Jury Questions
  • James Hausman v Holland America Line Jury Questions 2
  • James Hausman v Holland America Line Verdict

  • James Hausman Private Detective License
  • James R Hausman - Firearm Control Card Renewed April 30 2013
  • The Gold Center Inc - Corporation
  • Carol Hausman King 5 Interview After Verdict
  • Boban Tomasevski Amsterdam Casino Croupier (currently NCL Croupier) Public Statement

  • James Hausman vs. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 8-07-2014
  • James Hausman v Sawyer County Wisconsin
  • Charles Robbins Realtor v James R Hausman
  • Thomas Hausman Death Swissair 111
  • James Hausman Unity High School Reunion
  • Springfield Rare Coin Galleries (James Hausman) v. Mileham
  • Springfield Rare Coin Galleries Corp Document
  • James R Hausman v Estate of John C. Hirschfeld Jr
  • Ronald Petcher v Illinois Wholesale Jewelry, Inc. and The Gold Center
  • The Gold Center v Ted Lenker Jewelry Manufacture (08-23-2013)
  • James Hausman el at v CIB Marine Bancshares - 2005
  • The Gold Center v Digital Business Solutions (03-24-2005)
  • The Gold Center v Gold Dust Coin Company (01-29-2003)
  • The Gold Center v S & D Electrical Service (01-10-1997)
  • James Hausman 1973 Employment (People v Hahn)
  • Todd Green v James R Hausman - Illinois
  • James R Hausman Campaign Contributions
  • HAL Helpful Links
  • HAL Schedules
  • Track HAL Ships
  • HAL Consumer Ratings

  • Other Article Resources
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Schock
    www.conservapedia.com/Republican_Party
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3891322

    Photo Credits:
    Seattle Washington TV King5
    Tripfilms: How to ride an elephant
    The State Journal Register

    Featured or New Cruise Ship Incidents

    Suggested Reading