Monday, October 16, 2017


IF MIKE HERNANDEZ WILL LIE UNDER OATH TO A COURT, WHY WOULD HE NOT LIE ABOUT A LIST OF NAMES ON A PETITION WHICH HE KNOWS NO ONE CAN AUTHENTICATE?


To Duardo Paz-Martinez Today at 10:43 AM
That is a complete falsehood. I spoke with him in the phone during the Port elections and all of a sudden he literally goes off crying about his dying veteran brother and how he could not afford his cancer treatments. After literally 10 minutes I simply asked him, “how much does he need to stay alive?” which I assumed was the reason for his conduct. Then he flips a switch the next day and posts that I was trying to pay him off to endorse a candidate, which never came out of my mouth. That’s when I texted him that I would not deal with him anymore and I haven’t. When he saw that I was talking to you, he then contacted (Jose Angel) Gutierrez in an attempt to get back in contact with me. That is not going to happen.
Thanks again.
Mike
The falsehood Mike references is my claim way back months earlier he offered me money to endorse his candidates for the port.  Why did he take so many months to deny it?
KEY - On November 17, 2016, Mike by his own words stated he told Jose Angel Gutierrez he would not have contact with me.  In fact I posted how he blocked my email which is why I went to Jose Angel.
In May 2017, under oath Mike Hernandez said the following:

In paragraph 8 he says, says he never received a communication from me in December 2016, prior to me posting the comments he finds offensive.  In paragraph 13 he says before posting the offending comments in December 2016, I made no attempt to contact him.

Here is the problem by his own admission on November 17, I tried to open the lines of communication and by Mike's own words he said that was not going to happen.  So if in November 2016, Mike is making clear he will not open the lines of communication even through third parties like Jose Angel Gutierrez, than how did I refuse to communicate with him in December?
He lied to the court under oath about what was happening.  It is clearly sanctionable.  It was clearly deceptive and misleading to the court.  Only the court can decide if it was perjury or felony perjury.  But it will be addressed.
Finally, long before this lying email to the typing monkey the BV had posted many pictures of my brother who was then 79, and if nothing else would have been on medicare, which means he would have had medical coverage for his non-existent cancer. In fact he is on Tricare which means he has 100% medical coverage. If he is willing to lie to a court of law under oath, and attack a disabled veteran who did two tours in Vietnam, are you saying he would not lie about the list of signatories in his racist ad?

No comments: