This is no longer about money. It’s about a corporation and lawyers convincing the
court that I have deceived it. Their affidavits expose the truth.
The underlying conspiracy
to defraud me out of my small business in 2002 is fully documented & detailed @ www.FontainevCapeCodTimes.com.
This
site is made to identify the fraud upon the court these powerful entities have engaged
in. I use their affidavits, their documents to prove it.
This is a story of a local newspaper in 2002, plotting to defraud a local small businessman out of his local Internet real estate advertising portal, and the extremes the dinosaur paper was willing to go in order to gain entry in the NEW market. But this became much worse than a fraudulent business acquisition, because for over 8+ years of litigation this company and their lawyers have perpetrated a fraud upon the court. I don’t say that lightly. The underlying fraud was meticulously planned and is fully documented. The perjury and obstruction of justice is shown through Affidavits, Depositions and Motions of CCT and Counsel. 13 years later, 8 years of litigation, and this is Justice?
The Court was deceived by false affidavits of CCT. They are on record admitting the 2002 Bundle plan they claim to invent in 2003! Case Closed.
But I am sick and tired of being victim to this wealthy machine! As I was fighting this battle pro se, ran out of money to buy lawyers, I was also dealing with prostate cancer, and then malignant melanoma, traveling from Cape Cod to Boston, to Clinical trials in NYC, forced to defend myself from the false assertions of the wealthy company, world class lawyers, one a retired superior court judge, the 2nd firm of Facebook litigation, they were back home assuring the courts that my allegations were baseless.. Even when they knew my claims were right on the mark! I would return home from treatment, with enough stitches, chemo, steroids and radiation to last a lifetime, only to receive a certification of Motion from CCT lawyers, asking the Court for Protection from ME. They stole my business and then they denied me equal justice! Twice, and counting.
BECAUSE CCT filed a Motion Seeking Protection from Me in Barnstable Court, to silence my voice, stifle my access to the judicial system, whining about the “Undue Burden” my Claims of fraud are placing on them and the Court (My Opp #1, Opp #2), I make my case here @ ThePerjuryofCapeCodTimes.com, a name deliberately chosen to force the company & lawyers, who want to keep my voice out of court, to defend their brand. A Court of law or the court of Public Opinion, I will find vindication!
This deal was rigged, CCT Set me Up! And they've done the same to the courts! I could care less about pity, but I do expect to ultimately receive justice!
Key Docs -
I Document, with specificity, using CCT’s Depositions, Affidavits and the Record,
how CCT manipulated this entire Revenue Share deal! Turning it into a Revenue Steal
Deal. Every aspect of the underlying fraud had been unwound. If I couldn’t prove
the following, I’d already be facing libel charges from the largest of corporations,
the most powerful of executives and law firms -
- CCT had Bundles planned for this Deal in early 2002, but claimed to invent them in
Jan 2003, 70 days After the sale.
CCT withheld a plan that would result in $1.3 million in revenue during our deal, and presented me with one up to $4.3 million Instead.
CCT Altered the P&S. Removing “But Not Limited To” on 10/16, yet signed P&S of 10/31 has the term back in. Allowed CCT to deduct Bundles.
CCT Pretended to “Conceive” of Bundles on Jan 9, 2003, 70 days After the P&S, a staged Event (SOF #52 Admits a 2002-2006 Plan w/Bundles!)
My FontaineVCCTimes.com breaks each element down, as does My Site of 2 yrs prior. Document, Video, etc. It should be simple to prove me wrong!
CCT’s litigation misconduct is evidenced by 2 Courts finding Bundles Began in “Early
2003”, when CCT was forced to admit the 2002 Bundle Plan!
1) 5/2/12 Barnstable SJ
Ruling “documentary evidence indicates that CCT did not propose -
2) 12/23/13 Appeals Court Ruling “After the agreement was executed, CCTimes began to sell Internet Advertising in a bundle”
3) 6/14/11 CCT’S Response SOF #52: "Real Estate Merger Analysis" showed the amount
of revenue the Internet expected to receive each year from the bundle concept as
follows: 2002-
CCT REVISED HISTORY! Forced
to Admit on 6/14/11 A 2002-
CONSIDER! CCT admitted on the Record (SOF Reply #52 -
After being forced to Admit on 6/14/11 that their own records show they had this 2002 Bundle Plan, CCT continued the False Assertion, just as they had 4 months prior in 2/1/11 Summary Judgment Memo "the bald allegation that Fontaine reasonably relied on any such statement is squarely contradicted by the uncontested evidence in the record that the bundling plan wasn't even hatched until months after contract execution".“To the contrary, the only substantiated evidence establishes that the CCTimes conceived of the print and internet bundling strategy in early 2003, after the execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and that no representations concerning internet bundling were made to Fontaine whatsoever during the negotiations of the Purchase and Sale Agreement”. (9/18/14, 7/7/14, 5/22/14, 4/8/13, 3/15/13, 2/1/11).
The Barnstable 5/2/12 SJ Decision mirrors the assertions of CCT Counsel, Ruling CCT
had an absolute defense “CCT could not have misrepresented to plaintiff an advertising
agreement that did not exist during the 2002 negotiations”. Respectfully, The “agreement”
that “existed” during 2002 was between top CCT Management, who fraudulently withheld
the 2002-
- The Lawyer for CCT/Dow Jones, who approved the sale in 2002 left the company in scandal,
accused of giving advertisers false circulation numbers.
The CCT lawyer listed on the P&S had his law license suspended in 2015, according to CCT story, for false statements in legal documents.
The 1st law firm defending CCT in this lawsuit has filed affidavits claiming as fact that which they have also asserted a different answer.
The 2nd law firm defending CCT in this lawsuit has filed affidavits claiming as fact that which they have also asserted a different answer.
The President & Publisher of CCT Peter Meyer’s filed an Affidavit that is different from his deposition.
CCT admitted 2002 Bundles, won the case claiming they began in 03, has yet to disclose or pay those revenues per the P&S, or in Discovery!
These people are allowed to go into court and impugn my character and integrity, lawyers filing affidavits “substantiating” that I’m lying to the Court?
They have literally been allowed to change their answers previously made under oath! The Courts NEED to compel ALL Litigants to tell the truth, otherwise, I would have saved my money and settled it differently! I have suffered through 8+ years of litigation Misconduct, lawyers telling the Judge in MY community that I am a lair! I didn’t expect an even fight against 3 wealthy corporations and two prominent law firms, But I expected the Court to ensure it was Fair one. These people cannot begin to appreciate the stress, expense their fraudulent actions and years of litigation misconduct has cost Us.
- Aug 2010 Depositions, CCT Managers admitted CCT had Bundles in place IN 2002:
CCT’s Internet Manager Bob Kempf. Deposition March 2, 2010:
Q. Now, in 2000, 2001,
2002, were there joint Internet and print products? A. Yes.
Q. In those years, even
including 2000, 2001, 2002, were there situations where people would be offered print
products and also an internet product at well, under the same advertising package?
A. I believe there were.
CCT’s Advertising Manager Molly Evans Aug 26, 2010 Deposition:
Q. Was it being bundled
when you where there? A. At some point, yes.
Q. Was it being bundled two years before
you left? A. Oh, yes.
Q. So it was being bundled in 2002? A. Yes.
- Aug 2010 Meyer Deposition – “I ACTUALLY DON’T KNOW WHEN IT STARTED”:
CCT’s Publisher and President Peter Meyer Aug 23, 2010 Deposition:
Q. When did this bundling package occur? A. "I actually don't know when it started. I don't recall exactly when it started."
Q. An estimate? Can you give me an estimate?A. "No, I really can't. Maybe 2003 or 2004 maybe. Again, that's speculative. I'm not really sure.."
Both CCT Managers involved in the 2002 Revenue Share negotiations confirmed CCT had Bundles by 2002. Meyer didn’t know.
- FALSE STATEMENTS of February 1, 2011, CCT Memo in Support of SJ, Nutter McClellen and Fish:
But on February 1, 2011 Counsel for CCT files a Memo in Support of Summary Judgement Motion, which factually disputes my claim that CCT was hiding a Bundle Plan in 2002, and makes clear to the Court that Bundles Began In 2003 “wasn’t even hatched”, “AFTER the contract”, subsequently adopted plan”, “not yet developed marketing strategy”.
"the bald allegation that Fontaine reasonably relied on any such statement is squarely contradicted by the uncontested evidence in the record that the bundling plan wasn't even hatched until months after contract execution".
"In January, 2003, AFTER the contract had been executed, CCT developed a marketing concept which was a combination real estate advertising product".
“(2) CCT misappropriated the online revenue through its subsequently adopted plan to "bundle' its print and online products, incorporated months after the Agreements were executed, thus removing profits from the online revenue share which should have been attributable to Fontaine;”.
"Therefore, because ccT had not yet developed the marketing strategy of offering its customers a combination of advertising space in its print and online editions, rescission is inappropriate.".
The Court’s SJ Ruling on May 2, 2012, relies on President Meyer’s Affidavit: “In his affidavit, Meyer states that such product bundling began in early 2003". Meyer was also the designated representative for the Company, and would be responsible for the contents of the Memo itself. Meyer must have gone back after his Deposition and looked at CCT’s
records and was able to assert with confidence for the Court that CCT’s Bundles Began in 2003, just as they were asserting.
This Memo, which purports to tell the Court Bob Fontaine is not being fully honest,
was subject to Mass Rule of Civil procedure 56(e):
“Form of Affidavits; Further Testimony;
Defense Required. Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge,
shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively
that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.”.
- June 14, 2011 – 4 Mo Later, CCT IS FORCED TO ADMIT THE 2/1/11 AFFIDAVIT IS FALSE!, Nutter McClellen and Fish:
Plaintiff’s Response #52: "Real Estate Merger Analysis" showed the amount of revenue
the Internet expected to receive each year from the bundle concept as follows: 2002-
Cape Cod Time’s Reply #52 signed June 14, 2011 "CCT does not dispute Plaintiff's Response 52". Not the same truth as 4 months earlier!
Quite a forced Admission! CCT has a 2002 document titled after my company, it describes
CCT’s Plan for the entire Revenue Share deal, WITH Bundles IN 2002-
CCT’s 90%/10% Bundle Policy means $73,000 in 2002 Bundles Sales = $7,300 to Internet. WHERE IS THE $73,000 in 2002 Bundles that CCT hasn’t accounted for, being that CCT claims they conceived of Bundles in 2003? No mention in discovery, NONE of the accounting CCT was required to disclose mentions this $73,000 in 2002 Bundle Sales. Yet they have a secret plan which will mean a mere $53,000 Total will be contributed to the Internet Department from Bundles, included in my sale price, for the entire deal. Nobody makes that deal! Barnstable, May 2, 2012 Ruling: P3. “In his affidavit, Meyer states that such product bundling began in early 2003”.
#52 AN ADMISSION OF GUILT THAT CCT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE! CCT convinced both Courts “Policy” required 90% of all Bundle revenue to be allocated to their Print Department, 10% to Internet, that Bundles were not “planned”, “introduced”, “hatched”,“developed”, “conceived” or “begun” until AFTER the P&S, in “Early 2003”.
HERE WE SEE CCT’S HIDDEN 2002 DOCUMENT “Real Estate Merger Analysis” The Smoking
Gun! CCT had this deal fully priced out in 2002-
CCT HAD THIS DEAL PRICED IN 2001! Yet they managed to posture the relationships as
me chasing (needing) them right out of the gate! The Barnstable Court on Page #1
noted that I had “again contacted” CCT by email on Oct 12, 2001, after having previously
having contacted them, and “CCT did not respond to his request” -
Had the Court read Fontaine Exh #2 -
CCT’s OWN 2002 PLAN “Real Estate Merger Analysis”, THE SMOKING GUN, MAKES CCT’s CLAIMS OF HATCHING BUNDLES IN “EARLY 2003” PERJURY!
“Real Estate Merger Analysis”!
The Smoking Gun!
CCT has the entire sale pre-
My business: “CapeCodRealEstate.com Product Mix and Revenue Projections 2002-
“Real Estate Book Bundles |$7,300 | 2002”
Nutter Law Firm in 2011: "Fontaine hasn’t offered a shred of evidence to prove there was either a secret plan to implement such a proposal or that CCT somehow concealed it from him”" Really? You mean you haven’t Disclosed it.
Holland & Knight Law in 2014: “To the contrary, the only substantiated evidence establishes
that the CCTimes conceived of the print and internet bundling strategy after the
execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and that no representations concerning
internet bundling were made to Fontaine whatsoever during the negotiations of the
Purchase and Sale Agreement”. No representations -
- Massachustts Court of Appeals Decision of 12/23/13 shows CCT ALSO convinced the Court Bundles Began in 2003:
“After the agreement was executed, CCTimes began to sell Internet Advertising in
a bundle”.
CCT had conceded on June 14, 2011, in SOF Reply #52, that their own records
confirms that they were caught with the 2002 Bundle plan?
- FALSE STATEMENTS IN H&K’S April 8, 2013: Sur-
Reply Brief, DENIED :
*Importantly, Counsel now apparently knows something New, CCT had ‘Disclosed” something!
p.4 “Even if Real Estate Merger Analysis establishes that The CCtimes conceived of
the print and Internet bundling strategy prior to the execution of the Purchase and
Sale Agreement (which it does not)”. COUNSEL, “Even if” ? If it is proved Bundles
before the P&S -
“Contrary to Fontaine’s assertions, the Real Estate Merger Analysis, with it’s line –item entry for the “Real Estate Book Bundle,” has absolutely nothing to do the the products that Fontaine has complained about.” . Lawyers AGAIN CALLING ME A LIAR – Yet 3 weeks Prior The Same lawyer signed CCT’s Appeal Brief claiming “The Real Estate Merger Analysis makes no reference to any bundled products”."It has nothing to do with bundled products". So within that 3 week period, Counsel NOW has now learned that “Real Estate Merger Analysis” does indeed list “Real Estate Book Bundle” under 2002 Revenue, But now it simply has nothing to do with the Bundles in this lawsuit?
On June 14, 2011 CCT admitted in CCT SOF Reply #52, as their own document forced
them to, that CCT expected Bundle Revenue, in year 2002, NOT JANUARY 9, 2003, and
the entire deal 2002-
The name of the document tells us how much we can trust Counsel’s shifting Assertions:
“CapeCodRealEstate.com “Product Mix and Revenue Projections 2002-
“The Real Estate Merger Analysis makes no reference to any bundled products”. "It
has nothing to do with bundled products" "substantiated evidence establishes that
the CCTimes conceived of the bundling strategy in early 2003, after the execution
of the Purchase and Sale Agreement”. CCT HAD to File a Sur-
But they made some bad strategic errors when doing so, in an ongoing attempt to deceive the courts! The second law firm now realizing what they had missed all along, that the RE Merger indeed captures them planning 2002 Bundles, and worse, the 1st law firm admitted as such in June 14, 2011 in SOF #52.
Yet, they have been swearing for YEARS that“ the only substantiated evidence establishes that the CCTimes conceived of the print and internet bundling strategy in early 2003, after the execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement..”. (9/18/14, 7/7/14, 5/22/14, 4/8/13, 3/15/13, 2/1/11).
So Counsel NOW needs to convince the Court “RE Merger” has nothing to do with the Bundles in THIS litigation. ”Although RE Merger refers to Bundles, there is no record to support that this refers to the Bundles in this litigation”. (A false but grown up answer, better than “makes no reference to any bundle products” of 3 weeks prior).
*THIS LAWYER’S STATEMENT, THAT THERE IS “NOTHING IN THE RECORD” SHOWING RE MERGER
HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS LITIGATION -
23 days prior to this concession regarding THERE BEING NOTHING IN THE “RECORD”, in his 3/15/13 Appeal Brief, Same lawyer says “The cited Real Estate Merger analysis makes no reference to any bundles products, and was simply a revenue projections used in the negotiation of Fontaine’s Net Revenue Share baseline in connection with the proposed “merger” of Fontaine’s websites and the CCTimes.”.
So 3 weeks earlier Counsel knew PRECISELY what RE Merger was, HE INSTRUCTED THE COURT WITH GREAT KNOWLEDGE AND SPECIFICITY ABOUT HOW THIS DOCUMENT WAS RELATED TO THIS TRANSACTION “was simply a revenue projections used in the negotiation of Fontaine’s Net Revenue Share” . Counsel is Right! RE Merger WAS a projection CCT used in negotiations, AND there is NOTHING in CCT’S VERSION OF THE RECORD OF THAT! Why Not? Because CCT used it in the negotiations, for the purpose of defrauding me! The doc lists the 2002 Bundles they say didn’t exist. In January 2002 CCT had this 1.3 million dollar plan, in July 2002 they Mold a $4,310,000 Projection?
RE MERGER IS ONLY IN THE RECORD IS BECAUSE I PLACED IT THERE! The lawyer for the
massive corporation I am fighting pro se for 8+ years, defending my character against
THEIR lies, Had Stated on 3/15/13 that RE MERGER “makes no reference to any bundle
products” -
NOW in Sur-
SO HE ALTERS HIS FACTS -
Now CAUGHT with 2002 Bundles, CCT tries to suggest that RE Merger not only has “nothing
to do” with the transaction, But ALSO was “Disclosed”.
BOTH OF WHICH ARE DISPUTED
BY THE ATTORNEY, THE CLIENT, CCT MANAGEMENT, PRIOR COUNSEL, THE RECORD, AND COMMON
FRIGGEN SENSE!
So In CCT’s Sur-
How CAN CCT and Counsel actually suggest that RE Merger containing Bundles was “disclosed”
before the P&S? They won the case claiming they didn’t even begin until 2003! I was
pro se against 3 huge corporate owners, who were hiding the records, two major law
firms saying whatever needs to be said, and I catch them lying. Counsel is suggesting
that, contrary to everything each of his clients have sworn to, CCT gave me a 4th
“Projection” in 2002, which says they expect $1,300,000 in total revenue over the
deal, with $500,000 in deductions, leaving a pool of $800,000+-
BUT THEN, WITH THE JULY OFFER, they gave me a projection of $4,310,000 – No Mention Of Bundles (claiming they conceived of them in “early 2003”).. and there is absolutely no discussion about the $3,000,000 discrepancy? AND HOW WOULD CCT “CONCEIVE” OF BUNDLES ON JANUARY 9, 2003, YET COUNSEL KNOWS THEY DISCLOSED BUNDLES TO ME BEFORE THE 2002 P&S? SERIOUSLY?
Counsel have for YEARS been swearing to the fact that ”no representations concerning
internet bundling were made to Fontaine whatsoever during the negotiations of the
Purchase and Sale Agreement”, yet he wants to inform the Court of this 4th 2002 Projection
CCT used for the “Merger”, one that Happens to List my Company name and details 2002
“Real Estate Book Bundle Revenue”, the entire Deal Pre-
Perhaps Attorney Mitchell’s 4th Projection is identified by Ad Manager Evan’s Aug 26 2011 Deposition? “We had come up with three different scenarios, financial scenarios, on an Excel spread sheet. I have a visual of the spread sheet in my mind. It had three different likely scenarios of what the revenue and the bottom line might look like if we bought Mr. Fontaine’s company and merged the two websites. It was projected out for a multiple of years, five years, or something like that. It was a low case scenario, a middle range and a high. I remember that Peter and Bob Kempf and I poured over it and poured over it. Bob Kempf had prepared it, messaged it and messaged it. We kept looking at it trying to come up with, because we were new in this business ourselves, what the revenue might look like going forward and whether this was something we wanted to enter into, whether it was good for our business.“.
Sure, its July 2002 the Ad Manager is referring to, and CCT is just now valuing the
deal? These Fake Projections were created to induce ME as CCT relied on RE Merger!
SINCE CCT admits that “Real Estate Merger Analysis" showed the amount of revenue
the Internet expected to receive each year from the bundle concept as follows: 2002-
CCT Had an Aug___2002 Closing on the Draft P&S. Full “Disclosure” of a 4th Projection ‘RE Merger”? CCT HAD NO NEED FOR 3 NEW PROJECTIONS TO MOLD FOR THE PURPOSE EVANS CLAIMS “because we were new in this business ourselves, what the revenue might look like going forward and whether this was something we wanted to enter into, whether it was good for our business”… they ALREADY HAD THE DEAL PRICED OUT IN “RE MERGER”. All this molding & effort wasn’t for their purposes, it wasn’t even for disclosure so I could do my due diligence. It was fraud.
CCT & COUNSEL POSITIONED THEMSELVES THROUGH THEIR AFFIDAVITS SO THEY CANNOT GIVE AN ANSWER THAT DOESN’T CONFLICT WITH OTHERS!
IN CCT APPEAL BRIEF COUNSEL DIDN’T HAVE A CLUE THE DOCUMENT EXPOSED CCT’S 2002 BUNDLES! ! “The Real Estate Merger Analysis makes no reference to any bundled products”."It has nothing to do with bundled products". Counsel is trying to figure out how he can BOTH, claim that “something” was disclosed before the P&s, but he can’t say it’s Bundles, which he wants to imply for the Court, because he has multiple affidavits asserting“substantiated evidence establishes bundles began in 2003”.
But in dreaming up the ‘Disclosure’ defense, in conflict with the record and his client’s affidavits, Counsel places into question the veracity of the OTHER element of CCT’s defense ”no representations concerning internet bundling were made to Fontaine whatsoever during the negotiations of the Purchase and Sale Agreement”.
IN A THREE WEEK SPAN, March 15, 2013 CCT Appeal Brief – April 8, 2003 Attempted Sur-
*“RE Merger” which lists 2002 Bundles, was “DISCLOSED” prior to the P&S, AND “NO REPRESENTATIONS WHATSOEVER” concerning Bundles were made prior to the P&S.
*“RE Merger” “makes no reference to any bundle products” -
“RE Merger ”a revenue projections used in the negotiation of Fontaine’s Net Revenue
Share” AND “has absolutely nothing to do with the “Bundled” print and internet products
that Fontaine has complained about”.
Disclosed? What did Counsel learn in 3 weeks to make that claim? Who told him that, where on the record? What Date, What Context? WHAT Exactly DID CCT Disclose if RE Merger has “nothing to do with Bundles Products”, “absolutely nothing to do with the “Bundled” print and internet products that Fontaine has complained about”.?
No wonder 4 Judges have signed public rulings that are factually incorrect in concluding Bundles began in 2003!
Ad Manager Evans is very clear about CCT executives having only “three” Projections, created in July, long after RE Merger was created. 3 different corporate owners, 2 major law firms, and CCT executives share an unequivocal claim made under oath: “the only substantiated evidence establishes that the CCTimes conceived of the print and internet bundling strategy in early 2003, after the execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and that no representations concerning internet bundling were made to Fontaine whatsoever during the negotiations of the Purchase and Sale Agreement”. (CCT 9/18/14, 7/7/14, 5/22/14, 4/8/13, 3/15/13, 2/1/11).
*President Meyer filed an affidavit saying “Bundles Began in Early 2003”. And HE didn’t “Disclose” anything “I wouldn’t have told him what that was”
*Sur-
Because that April, when I started fighting for my life with the 2nd aggressive cancer since fighting CCT and Counsel’s litigation misconduct, you were in Court filing affidavits that present me as a liar, but your assertions CAN NOT BE TRUE! Your firm has probably earned fees in excess of what CCT could have paid me had they not fraudulently acquired my business in the first place. But instead of being an honest advocate, you started making things up! Matt is among the list of lawyers stating Bundles were conceived in January 2003, never mentioned prior to P&S:
“To the contrary, the only substantiated evidence establishes that the CCTimes conceived of the print and internet bundling strategy in early 2003, after the execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and that no representations concerning internet bundling were made to Fontaine whatsoever during the negotiations of the Purchase and Sale Agreement”. (9/18/14, 7/7/14, 5/22/14, 4/8/13, 3/15/13, 2/1/11). Conceived of in 2003, hence couldn’t have been disclosed in 2002! Sure. WHO DID ALL THE SUBSTANTIATING FOR YOU COUNSEL?
- Barnstable SJ Decision (View) 5/2/12 ERRONEOUSLY Ruled Bundling Began in “Early
2003”:
P2.”In January 2003, Kempf sent the following email to certain CCT staff, on which he copied plaintiff “I am proposing a bundle real estate product and price”..
P3. “In his affidavit, Meyer states that such product bundling began in early 2003”.
pg5. ”Indeed, contrary to plaintiffs assertion, documentary evidence indicates that
CCT did not propose -
pg8.”In sum, Plaintiff has not offered evidence that the topics allegedly misrepresented to him were even contemplated by CCT at the time the P&S was executed, much less actively concealed from him. Rather, plaintiff admits that bundling was not discussed during negotiations, and the record reflects this concept was not formally proposed until January 2003”.
P11.”the record does not support Plaintiffs allegation that CCT executives had expressed or implemented bundle advertising, prior to 2002. To the contrary, the record reflects that Robert Kempf did not propose the concept until January 2003”.
P12.”Indeed, Plaintiff’s own allegations confirm that Bundling was never discussed during negotiations”.
CCT could NOT have won SJ, had they told the truth. No question of Material Fact?
CCT has multi versions of the Facts! It’s now 2015 and 2 Courts STILL believe that
CCT hadn’t even “contemplated’ bundles at the time of the P&S -
The Court Clearly was Unable to see past the False assertions of CCT & Counsel, and does not recognize the 2002 Bundle Scam!
- FALSE STATEMENTS CCT asserted in other Filings (among many others):
* "..in early 2003, CCT introduced the concept of offering a combination real estate advertising product"(CCT Rule 9A(5)(b) SOF #50).
* "The record evidence involving the package pricing for the real estate book Cape at Home and Internet advertising for real estate was part of an overall plan set out in a memo dated Jan 9, 2003" (CCT JA REPLY FACT 56, Pg 42).
* "In early 2003, as a way to drive more internet real estate revenue by leveraging existing print customer, CCT began offering print and internet advertising products with a monthly print product, Cape at Home, and its real estate internet site. " (Meyer Aff).
Experienced Counsel for CCT on June 14, 2011, in CCT SOF Reply #52, admitted CCT Expected Bundle revenue in 2002? Jan 9, 2003 was Staged!
- FALSE STATEMENTS of CCT’s Massachusetts Appellee Brief 3/15/2013, Holland & Knight:
“Fontaine alleges that “Real Estate Merger Analysis, that was provided to him during the negotiations of the Purchase and Sale Agreement.”. This company spent 8 years claiming Bundles were “conceived” in “Early 2003”, but also claim they “provided” to me a document that lists Their 2002 Bundle Plan, which they hatched in 2003?
And as I noted for the Court ATOP my Reply Brief:
Cape Cod Times Appellee Brief 3/15/2013:
“The cited Real Estate Merger analysis makes no reference to any bundles products, and was simply a revenue projections used in the negotiation of Fontaine’s Net Revenue Share baseline in connection with the proposed “merger” of Fontaine’s websites and the CCTimes.”
"It has nothing to do with bundled products". My Reply brief Explained how absurd this claim is!
“the only substantiated evidence establishes that the CCTimes conceived of the print and internet bundling strategy in early 2003, after the execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement..”..
“Fontaine argues that the CCTimes, through an October 16, 2002 e-
“More fundamentally, the “Real Estate Merger Analysis” was full y disclosed and provided to Fontaine during the negotiations. Therefore, Fontaine’s argument that information contained in this document was somehow hidden from his is specious”.
CCT Makes Significant errors Here! *The Document Clearly references Bundles in 2002,
to suggest in the same filing that CCTimes conceived of Bundling in 2003 insulting.
*CCT itself “substantiated” in SOF Reply #52 on 6/14/11 that CCT had the Bundle Plan
all priced out 2002-
*Counsel misstates the evidence of the Oct 16 “But Not Limited To” exchange (Fontaine
Exh #13), where CCT failed to “disclose” either “Bundles” or the 90% Exclusion “Policy”
-
Further, while I’m glad CCT acknowledges that THIS TERM represented “itemized deductions
that would be used in calculating his Net Revenue Share” -
This Lawyer has made MY fortune in Legal Fees swearing and substantiating that the evidence proves that the Bundles he TRIES to claim Here were disclosed in 2002, were not even conceived by CCTimes until after the P&S, in“early 2003”.
This Lawyer backed that up. Repeatedly assuring the Court that -
This Lawyers affidavits conflict with his own affidavits, they are in direct conflict with his clients assertions, with Evans, with Meyer, and Kempf, with NM&F Law Firm, with the Record evidence, CCT’s own records. Just as Meyer wanted to say in deposition that CCT’s Bundles Began in “2003 or 2004” when we now know from SOF #52 that is false, though his affidavit claims it’s true, so too does Counsel in this instance, attempting to suggest a “Disclosure” when the record shows that didn’t happen. Even as his claim is that no representations were made about bundles ‘whatsoever’. Perhaps Meyer and Mitchell can explain to 4 Judges how that can be, when and where and HOW CCT disclosed in 2002 the bundles they have sworn to the Court they conceived in 2003?
Perhaps Attorney Mitchell can tell us, and the 4 Judges who trusted him that Bundles Began in “early 2003”, and CCT made “no representations whatsoever” about Bundles, exactly WHAT Counsel believes CCT had “Disclosed” before the P&S? It couldn’t be Bundles, he claims they were conceived in 2003, that was CCT’s defense! Is there a document they can point to where CCT’s 90%/10% “Policy” was disclosed, the other tool in CCT’s scam? CCT IS ON RECORD SWEARING BUNDLES BEGAN IN “EARLY 2003”. THEY EVEN INTRODUCED EVIDENCE TO THE COURT, WHICH BOTH COURTS RELIED ON, OF HATCHING BUNDLES ON JAN 9, 2003!
WHICH BRINGS US TO 2 KEY EVENTS THAT EXPOSE THE EFFORT EMPLOYED BY CCT TO DEFRAUD ME IN THIS TRANSACTION!
1) On October 16, 2002 Cape Cod Times committed Contract Fraud. CCT removed “But
Not Limited To” INSTEAD of disclosing Bundles or 90%/10% Policy.
2) On January 9, 2003 CCT Staged Conceiving Bundles, having reinserted “But Not Limited
To” in the P&S, Granting themselves Control of the Consideration!
October 16, 2002 brings us to the Heart of this conspiracy by CCT to steal what could
have been over $1,000,000 in consideration in the price of my business!
October 16
is months after CCT had intended to close, “RE Merger” shows "*2002 for 6 months”
with ads unique to my website, so that assumes a sale By July 1, 2002. We had several
draft P&S CCt sent me with Open Aug_____2002 Closing listed.
● On October 16, 2002, As bad a case of contract fraud and misrepresentation you will find by a major corporation. By the end of Oct 16, 2002, 2 weeks prior to the closing, The P&S with the Final Agreed Upon Terms for This Deal is in an attachment referred to in Fontaine Exh #13. This Deal was No longer a “Net Revenue Share” deal, as CCT chose to describe it. Because with the terms “Expenses” and then “But Not Limited To” removed from the language, and without CCT Identifying and including anything else that might be susceptible to being accounted for outside of the 20% share percentage, the ONLY deviation contemplated from ME being entitled to “20% of Gross Revenue”, are “bad debts, discounts, credits and excluded revenue”. CCT themselves wrote the terms! The individual RE Listings sold as Bundle Ads were the placed in the “Directory Listings” which are an included category (P&S 1.3 (1) & (2)). The Ads were sold direct from Sales Staff, and were not “Ported” from something else CCT already had going on.
BY OCT 16 CCT HAS MADE ALL THE “DISCLOSURE” THEY PLAN TO MAKE. BUT INSTEAD OF DISCLOSING BUNDLES PER THIS DUE DILIGENCE REQUEST, CCT SAYS NOTHING OF “BUNDLES”, NOTHING OF 90%/10% “POLICY”, NOTHING ABOUT “RE MERGER” AND THE $1.3 PLAN.
CCT’s Appeal brief tries to suggest in this Oct 16 exchange that Fontaine argues that CCT “indicated that it would remove the phrase “But Not Limited to” from a proposed“ term in the Purchase and Sale Agreement that itemized deductions that would be used in calculating his Net revenue Share’”. NO! That’s NOT what I argue, I state as the evidence shows, that term was removed! That was no longer a proposal!
Therefore, had CCT not Altered the Terms of the P&S, and CCT obviously contemplated
this as part of their conspiracy, CCT would have owed me 20% of the $500,000+-
I didn’t want to be here, I have other priorities. This wasn’t a choice. Life isn’t always easy.
Standing up to Bullies is not much fun.
And so, for those reasons and many others, I will continue to follow that path that vindicates my name from those that would abuse the Court. If CCT thinks they can explain these contradictions, good luck!
Go To FontainevCapeCodTimes.com for A Video breakdown of the underlying fraud.
Thank you,
Robert Fontaine
P.OP.Box 386, West Dennis, Ma. 02670
(508) 394-
BobVCCT@CapeCodEmail.com
http://www.hklaw.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Articles/Part3_UnlawfulConduct.pdf
If
the lawyer has become actively involved with and/or facilitated the client’s unlawful
conduct, the lawyer is faced with more complicated decisions and obligations. One
common example is when the lawyer discovers that the client has been dishonest with
the lawyer about material facts, and the lawyer has taken action (e.g., filed a
pleading) in reliance on the client’s untrue version of the facts. There are at least
some situations in which that reliance compels a lawyer to take remedial measures.
ABA Model Rule 3.3, for example, requires lawyers to “correct a false statement of
material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer . . . .” As for
false statements made during the representation, but not to a tribunal, ABA Model
Rule 4.1 requires disclosure of material facts as “necessary to avoid assisting a
criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.”
Note that, as discussed above, disclosure may not be prohibited by Rule 1.6 where
a client is engaging or will engage in serious criminal conduct.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter268/Section1
Section
1. Whoever, being lawfully required to depose the truth in a judicial proceeding
or in a proceeding in a course of justice, wilfully swears or affirms falsely in
a matter material to the issue or point in question, or whoever, being required by
law to take an oath or affirmation, wilfully swears or affirms falsely in a matter
relative to which such oath or affirmation is required, shall be guilty of perjury.
http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/rpc3.htm#Rule 3.4
RULE 3:07 -
(1) make a false statement of material fact
or law to a tribunal;
(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure
is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client, except
as provided in Rule 3.3 (e);
(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority
in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the
position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(4) offer evidence
that the lawyer knows to be false, except as provided in Rule 3.3 (e). If a lawyer
has offered, or the lawyer's client or witnesses testifying on behalf of the client
have given, material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer
shall take reasonable remedial measures.
(b) The duties stated in paragraph (a) continue
to the conclusion of the proceeding, including all appeals, and apply even if compliance
requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
(c) A lawyer may
refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
PERHAPS THE JUSTICE OF THE APPEALS COURT PANEL MIGHT HOLD COUNSEL TO ACCOUNT? Per my Rule 60 Motion, Fraud Upon The Court.
63. Cape Cod Times convinced the Appeals Court bundles began “AFTER” the P&S too! In MT. IVY PRESS v DEFONSECA, The Honorable Appeals Court Justice Wolohojian wrote that even a Pro Se litigant is not insulated from committing fraud on the court.
“Although fraud on the court typically involves officers of the court, we are unprepared
to say that pro se litigants are in all circumstances insulated from committing fraud
on the court. Pro se litigants are generally required to comply with the same rules
as represented parties and their attorneys, see, e.g., Pandey v. Roulston, 419 Mass.
1010 , 1011 (1995); Kyler v. Everson, 442 F.3d 1251, 1253-
Justice Wolohojian was on the 3 member Appeals Court Panel that ruled in it’s December 23, 2013 decision AFFIRMING the Barnstable ruling “After the agreement was executed, CCTimes began to sell Internet advertising in a "bundle" with print advertising, charging a discounted price for the Internet advertising. That is simply what the corporation and it’s counsel allowed the Court to believe. And counsel is surely an officers of the court.. And in Judge’s words “there is no reason to immunize them from the consequences of the most egregious forms of misconduct.”
A final thought, in so much as we consider the conflicting recollection of the facts, by the folks who control the “REAL” records, from CCT Ad Manager Evan to internet Manager Kempf, from President & Publisher Meyer to The Nutter Law firm, and to Holland & Knight, who EACH have affidavits that fail to comport with the others (I think they’re expected to have the same facts?)..
Oct 16 completely changed this deal! There MUST be an email exchange or reference
to HOW that changed, it effected the entire deal.. Maybe we can ask the Attorney
who’s name is on the P&S and who would have helped CCT make that change -
Attorney Dalton might not be the best person to discuss the integrity of documents:
Cape Cod Times -
We could ask Andrew Langhoff, Gen Counsel for DJ/Ottaway during the sale, who advised
CCT. I don't know if Andrew got the $1,300,000 version of the “projections” by CCT,
or the $4,310,000 they had me to rely on, But I do know that he was publicly accused
of, and left News Corps Wall St Journal Europe, for playing games with projections
given to major advertisers. (Circulation scam) -
CCT’s owners had 100 billion dollars in market cap while stealing my money in Massachusetts Courts. Nutter McClellen and Fish employed close to 300 lawyers, Holland and & Knight has over 1,100 lawyers, in 21 US Cities and around the world. And not a single one had the decency to tell the truth as you were destroying a pro se litigant with multiple advanced cancers. I’d travel from Boston to NYC hospitals for Clinical trials to save my life, while they were “substantiating” what is clearly false and even planted evidence. This served to render my words meaningless to the Court. I don’t know if I’ll live long enough to find vindication, justice, but I’m going to make sure The record makes that evident! My family deserves that.
January 9, 2003 “Memo. If You Think Oct 16 Was Bad -
JANUARY 9, 2003, Now 70 days after the Oct 31 P&S, Fontaine Employed @ CCT, a CCT
Mgt “MEMO” CCT HAS JUST CONCEIVED OF BUNDLES! THEY WANT TO SEND SALE STAFF OUT TO
START SELLING. NOW WE KNOW CCT ADMITTED THEY HAD A 2002 BUNDLE PLAN AND EXPECTED
BUNDLE REVENUE IN 2002, AT THE 90/10 RATE.
*Fontaine Exhibit #13. ** Jan 9 detailed
in “G” at FontainevCapeCodTimes.com *My briefs described it, my FAR describes it,
my APP to Mass SJC described it!
When creating this fictitious Memo to deceive me, and now the Courts, CCT Apparently
forgot they had “poured over and messaged” the Plan they would use to regulate
Bundles
in this deal, back in 2002 “RE Merger” -
Apparently they forgot about the 90%/10% Bundle allocation Policy. Because this fake
Jan 9 “Projection” suggest 40% share will go to internet.
Apparently they forgot Oct
16, 2002, when they agree to remove “But Not Limited To”, so if it applied, Bundle
or not, it would be paid at 20% to me, period!
The January 9, 2003 Memo is Planted Evidence, now used (successfully) to deceive the courts.The Court knew that “Bundles” were important. The Barnstable Court trusted CCT affidavits when ruling in their favor, and refers to product Bundling on Pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, in a 15 page decision. And 15 is the signature page.
The Barnstable Decision: “Second, the record does not support Plaintiff’s allegation that CCT executives had discussed or implemented bundled advertising until 2002. To the contrary, the record reflects that Robert Kempf did not propose the concept until January 2003:..”. The Court is Incorrect, thanks to CCT.
Cape Cod Times surely understood how deceptive and unfair it would have been to hide
a scheme where they would create an Internet book bundle, and allocate 90% of the
revenues to the Print Department, away from internet and my sales price under the
deal. So they had to HIDE the plan (A1 -
BUT ONCE WE FOUND THE “SMOKING GUN”, AND ONCE CCT WAS CORNERED WITH THE REALITY THAT
IS THE 2002 BUNDLE PLAN, WE KNOW THAT MEMO CAN’T BE TRUE. THE ONLY ONE WHO BELIEVED
THAT PROPOSAL WAS LEGITIMATE WAS BOB FONTAINE -
Take another look at RE Merger, then look at the affidavits of company and Counsel, SWEARING TO THE COURT BUNDLE WERE CONCEIVED IN EARLY 2003”. Look at CCT SOF Reply #52 where they admit the entire deal was contemplated (calculated) with Bundles, in 2002. Then consider the effort CCT management, my new partners in revenue, placed in projecting the financial end game of our deal, when they were trying to figure out in July 2002, how to Hide the Bundle plan they had for many months prior:
AD Manager Molly Evans”“We had come up with three different scenarios, financial scenarios, on an Excel spread sheet. I have a visual of the spread sheet in my mind. It had three different likely scenarios of what the revenue and the bottom line might look like if we bought Mr. Fontaine’s company and merged the two websites. It was projected out for a multiple of years, five years, or something like that. It was a low case scenario, a middle range and a high. I remember that Peter and Bob Kempf and I poured over it and poured over it. Bob Kempf had prepared it, messaged it and messaged it. We kept looking at it trying to come up with, because we were new in this business ourselves, what the revenue might look like going forward and whether this was something we wanted to enter into, whether it was good for our business.“.
The Court’s SJ Ruling on May 2, 2012, on President Meyer’s Affidavit: “In his affidavit, Meyer states that such product bundling began in early 2003".
CCT Counsel “ the only substantiated evidence establishes that the CCTimes conceived
of the print and internet bundling strategy in early 2003, after the execution of
the Purchase and Sale Agreement..”. (9/18/14, 7/7/14, 5/22/14, 4/8/13, 3/15/13, 2/1/11).
The Court again:”IIn sum, Plaintiff has not offered evidence that the topics allegedly misrepresented to him were even contemplated by CCT at the time the P&S was executed, much less actively concealed from him. Rather, plaintiff admits that bundling was not discussed during negotiations, and the record reflects this concept was not formally proposed until January 2003”. Sorry Your Honor.
The January 9, 2003 Performance by CCT. $220 to Print / $140 to Internet. With a 90%/10% Policy?
ONLY CCT knew on Oct 16 they had a Bundle Plan, A 10% Policy, and with “But Not Limited To” in the P&S, they were Unlimited! IF CCT even Mentions “Bundles” at this point, I walk away, and they know it.
When they agreed to remove the term they had to know they would sneak it back in, otherwise they would have just disclosed the Bundle and the 90% Policy, and RE Merger. They Didn’t!
Instead, because I pressed my due diligence, they were forced to pretend to concede that term, that key right that completely altered the deal, giving them absolute control over the deal, but they knew they would place it back into the Contract. After all, come January 9, 70 days After the P&S, they could just invent Bundles, claim a 90% Policy, and nobody would be the wiser.
They could just blame Fontaine for not making sure the contract didn’t prevent them from doing what they did, let the Court think the paper accounting for costs is only natural, the contract itself no longer prevents it, and Fontaine is lying, he just wants our money.
But CCTs 2002 conspiracy to manipulate terms, alter contracts, hide projections, plant evidence, substantiated by Counsel, and suggest the “good” litigants can be trusted, and pro se Fontaine can’t, required CCT convince the Court NOW as they had Fontaine THEN, that they conceived of Bundles AFTER the sale, on January 9, 2003. They were forced in SOF #52 to admit that isn’t true!
Further evidence of CCT’s willingness to deceive is documented on August 10, 2002:
Both my Appeal Briefs described this key part in the “negotiations” (as if it were).
CCT’s Draft P&S contemplated an Aug___,2002 closing. On Aug 9 I tell CCT I will transfer
the 10+-
So what does Meyer, Evans and Kempf do as they begin to take control of my business
on August 10th? They commutate among themselves about my “assumption”, which they
know is wrong, and which they created, but they say nothing to me -
To Attorney Mitchell and his “CCT Disclosed” Affidavits -
CCT didn’t stop at their Offices to besmirch my good name, to advance their own goals and profits.. Below is Ad Manager Evans 2010 Deposition, she was promoted after giving me $4,3100,000 Projections instead of the real ones, given her own newspaper to Publish.
To left: We know CCT was hiding in RE Merger during 2002 negotiations, a Plan to
allocate only $53,000+-
To Right: “He wasn’t selling” -
ThePerjuryofCapeCodTimes.com
I never asked anyone to trust me, I only ask they consider
the obvious implication of the demonstrably false affidavits of CCT and Counsel!!
Let the record show that Cape Cod Times during this Litigation has been owned by
A Division of Ottaway Newspapers, Dow Jones Local Media Group, Dow Jones, sold to
News Corp for 5 billion, then Local Media Group Holding, Newcastle Investment Corp,
an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group, LLC. The false statements made under each.
Legal Representation for Cape Cod Times, and it’s various ownership groups, was Nutter
McClellen and Fish, succeeded by Holland and Knight. I only know WHO they are, because
I had to ask the court to have them identify WHO THEY ARE NOW -
10/08/2013 RE#20: Allowed. The defendant shall file seven copies of its corporate disclosure statement under a cover letter referring this order on or before 10/16/13. As a courtesy a member of the Clerk's Office will attach it to the defendant's briefs. *Notice. Lawyers ignoring rules, forcing a pro se to file a motion to force them!
*There are 2 key aspects of CCT’s conspiracy which we NOW see in retrospect as integral
parts of their scam!
#1. Altered P&S. On October 16, 2002, 2 weeks before the P&S
was signed, CCT agreed to remove “But not limited” to from the P&S, and did. I had
pleaded with them to identify anything they wanted to “expense” or “cost”, or else
remove the term. I find out in litigation years later, they had snuck the term back
in those 2 weeks. In 2002 I didnt know the significance of that term, because CCT
removed it instead of identifying Bundles. But they had to admit 2002 Bundles on
6/14/11 in SOF Reply #52, exposing how manipulating and deceptive they were in agreeing
to remove the term, but knowing they HAD to sneak it back in! CCT hijacked the consideration!
Oct 16, 2002 Fraud Details!
#2. January 9, 2003 “Memo” -
The only
thing more despicable than Oct 16 May be January 9th (Until we reach litigation anyway).
CCT’s was forced admitting on 6/14/11 of their 2002-