For $30 you can buy honesty from scammer couple Mas Sajady and Fei Zhou.
But when Sajady gets to court, he uses his customers’ money to buy a lawyer to defend his dishonesty. Sajady’s lawyer even lied. I believe Mas Sajady lied prolifically in his attempt to rob me of my constitutional rights. Sajady and Zhou also lied in their second failed lawsuit, against Tanster, another whistle blower of their fraud.
Let’s examine perjury as it relates to Sajady.
Minnesota Statute §609.48 PERJURY basically says that if you make two inconsistent statements in court, the court doesn’t have to prove which one is right — inconsistent statements are in and of themselves sufficient for conviction, and all you need are two.
Mas Sajady made inconsistent statements to the court. In addition to inconsistent statements, Sajady and his lawyer made false statements to the court, evidence here. Now let’s examine some of the “inconsistent statements” Mas Sajady made in his attempts to rob me of my constitutional rights.
INCONSISTENT STATEMENT 1 – YEAR HE STARTED HIS BUSINESS
Mas Sajady testified that he started his business in 2011, when his website advertises he started in 2009. (Exhibit 23 – Aug. 10 Tr. p. 3 at 6-13).
Sajady tried to backtrack what his website publishes, saying it was an error. But the fact is there is more evidence to substantiate his 2009 claim, which we are not publishing at this time.
INCONSISTENT STATEMENT 2 – YEAR HE FORMED HIS CORPORATION
Sajady testified that he incorporated in 2013 or ’14, when his corporate filing says March 2015 (not introduced to evidence).
INCONSISTENT STATEMENT 3 – KNOWING WHO I AM
Sajady testified he didn’t know who I am, yet he knew who I was and claimed I was defaming him when he filed a police report against me in November 2016. (Aug. 10 Tr. pp. 19 at 25 to 20 at 12).
Sajady knew who I was when he filed a police report against me for defamation.
INCONSISTENT STATEMENT 4 – MOTIVATION
Mas Sajady made inconsistent statements regarding his motivation. He testified he did not seek the March 22, 2017 Modifcation to silence me (Aug. 10 Tr. p. 18 at 11-18). Contradicting himself, he testified that the purpose of the March 22 Modification was to force online media sites to remove my published content (May 23 Tr. p. 54 at 7-16), and to stop me from defaming him. (Aug. 10 Tr. p. 30 at 4-10).
Mas Sajady saying he did not seek the March 22 Modification to silence me:
Mas Sajady contradicting himself — testifying that the reason why he sought the March 22 Modification was to silence me:
Mas Sajady again testifying that he sought the March 22 Modification to silence me –to stop me from defaming him:
Above we have another false statement from Mas Sajady — There was nothing in the original HRO that limited my free speech in any way. Read the HRO here and see for yourself.
Here is an excerpt of the judge’s order reversing Sajady’s unconstitutional modification that robbed me of my rights of freedom of speech and religion, clearly stating that Sajady’s modification infringed on my First Amendment rights and public discussion about Sajady’s conduct is a matter of public concern:
INCONSISTENT STATEMENT 5 – WHETHER SAJADY READ THE POLICE REPORTS REGARDING HIM
I filed a police report with information supporting my claim that Mas Sajady was practicing medicine without a license. Sajady made not two, but three inconsistent statements regarding whether he read my police reports regarding his unlicensed practice of medicine. Sajady states:
INCONSISTENT STATEMENT 6 – WHEN SAJADY SUBMITTED FEB 2017 HRO PETITION
Sajady’s statement as to when he submitted his original restraining order petition conflicts with court documents. For those of you who want some fun reading, here is his February 17, 2017 restraining order petition. I counted over 40 false statements and relevant omissions in it. Here’s one of my favorites: Sajady says I sexually assaulted him — defaming me.
Here are the inconsistent statements.
- When Sajady’s lawyer asked him why he didn’t recall any details of the police reports, Sajady said: “It was really late during the day and I had to get it into the court office and so they asked me to go run across and get printouts. And by the time I got the printouts, I attached them on there, I didn’t have time — the clerk was closing and I submitted it.” (Aug. 10 Tr. p. 28 at 1-7).
- However, the February 17, 2017 HRO I received was stamped “Filed February 17, 2017″ from both Carver and Morrison Counties, and the outgoing fax stamp from Carver County reads: “Feb. 17 2017 12:42PM Carver County 952-361-1491.” Clearly the petition must have been received February 17, 2017 before 12:43pm. This was not at the “end of the day” as Sajady stated.
INCONSISTENT STATEMENT 7 – HOW SAJADY DEALS WITH EMPLOYEES
Under questioning by both his attorney and my attorney, Sajady made inconsistent statements regarding how he deals with employees. Sajady testified he doesn’t get closely involved in his employees jobs, and yet he also testified he was holding meetings to address employee frustrations.
Sajady contradicted himself under his attorney’s questioning:
- Sajady testified regarding getting closely involved with his employees’ jobs: “ I don’t talk to my employees, as well, successful business, I don’t get in the details, nuts and bolts of everyday tasks. I just don’t have time to do that.” (Aug. 10 Tr. p. 24 at 13-21).
- But then a few minutes later he testified about employee meetings where he was personally addressing his employees’ frustrations — “quite often. They don’t know what to do, you know, they ask her saying nicely, stop, refrain; and again she keeps badgering them, the employees, the event partners.” (Of note — Sajady’s employees never “asked me nicely” — the only contact I got from his employees was Kaille Padgett saying she wanted to “annihilate” me and calling us “slave bitches.”) (Aug. 10 Tr. p. 26 at 21 to 27 at 3).
Sajady also contradicted himself during my attorney’s questioning:
- Sajady said again he didn’t get closely involved with his employee’s jobs: “Your testimony is that Mas Sajady, Inc. is a big company, you’re very busy, you don’t micromanage, you don’t tell your employees what to do; correct?” Sajady replied, “Correct.”
- But then he again suggested there were employee meetings where he was personally dealing with employee’s frustrations: “Fair to say that you discussed what response you should make to Ms. Nygard’s incessant harassment?” Sajady replied: “ We didn’t know what to do at that time.” (Aug. 10 Tr. p. 30 at 11 to p. 31 at 3).
Once again Sajady lies that I was harassing anyone. It is his employee who demonstrated harassment saying she wanted to “annihilate” me and calling us “slave bitches.”
In conclusion, the state of Minnesota defines perjury as two inconsistent statements. I have catalogued nearly 20 inconsistent statements from Sajady in his failed attempt to rob me of my constitutional rights. This information will go somewhere.
There is evidence Sajady has lied on his attempt to sue Tanster for defamation. Sajady claims in a legal document that there are no investigations. I for one am in possession of documents with a few case numbers. More evidence of investigations of Sajady here.