Fontaine V Cape Cod Times, Pending Appeal of Summary Judgment Cape Cod Times, a division of Ottaway Newspapers, now Dow Jones Local Media Group. A News Corp company.

The 2002 sale of my business to and my employment with the Cape Cod Times.

Complaint seeks: Rescission of both agreements (Count 1), Breach of Contract (Count II), Detrimental Reliance (Count III),  Fraud in the Inducement (Count IV), Intentional Misrepresentation (Count V),  and violations of c. 93A (Count VI).

*Appeals Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Case Docket ROBERT FONTAINE vs. CAPE COD TIMES 2012-P-1085. | Justia Account For Federal Filing.

*10/19/12. The Cape Cod Times, their parent Dow Jones and their parent News Corp have each been made aware of the claims I make on this page. I assumed they would take it very seriously, would understandably be all over my case if I were making false claims, and would be interested in talking to me if I could document to them that it was their Cape Cod Times who was committing a fraud upon the court.  If after viewing this video and reading these documents they can continue to suggest I am the one committing fraud, then they simply don't care about the truth, or the law.  Ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care. On 10/1/12 I wrote News Corp that CCT was still giving flase circulation numbers to their advertisers. This wouldn't be so disgusting except that I put my employment on the line in 2006 to prevent this very fraud from happening! Among those advertisers are my clients who are being lied to, as they have since 2003. On 10/12/12 I had made this information available to Jason Conti, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. On 10/16/12 I made it available to the global lawfirm representing CCT in this suit. Yet advertisers continue (10/19) to be misled through gross overstating of circulation numbers with a false ad that's been up for years (#19 Below). These are neighbors, small business owners. What would Mr. Murdoch think? Perhaps they might ask him before this goes too far? Producing knowingly false numbers for others to rely on like this is precisely one of the methods they incorporated in their scheme to acquire my business by fraudulent means. It is also the exact same method they used to decieve their own advertisers out of substantial revenues as I clearly state in my 2006 whistleblower complaint.

What I present below is basically a diary of Cape Cod Times management's continuous and ongoing misrepresented facts and outright fraud. I show in specific detail, using their own words and documents, how they colluded to steal my small business from me in 2002. I document how they intentionally misrepresented material facts to me, to their advertisers, and now to the Court. I have attempted to speak logic and reason with this huge media company to look at these facts, and welcome any argument suggesting I am wrong on any of these points. I think their reasoning is that they tricked the court and that's all that matters. This company has also provided false information to the US Department of Labor to avoid paying thousands of hours of overtime wages. My whistleblower complaint to their parent company Dow Jones has failed to prevent the advertisers from being grossly overbilled through circulation fraud. This misrepresentation of circulation continues into October 2012.  In a seperate incident I left a meeting at work and went directly to the Cape Cod Hospital ER, where I was admitted with work related stress, a result of trying to protect CCT's own advertisers from deceiving them. On the very day I returned from work they retaliated against me again, in writing. I think the particulars in that case of Retailition is the most telling about the character of these people. Most disturbing, I have have complained to lawyers representing Cape Cod Times, Dow Jones and News Corp that I have good reason to believe that a Manager and multiple CCT employees has accessed personal & confidential information about me and my family while at a Manager's office at the CCT, invading my privacy. This company simply doesn't take these unethical actions seriously. Fortunately, everything is in writing, because some of this is hard to believe.

There are two Pressing issues I need to address before I go through the details of this case.    *1. Invasion of privacy, or worse? About 2 years after the filing of this lawsuit I was contacted and warned by employee(s) of CCT, my former coworkers, that employees and management of CCT were in the Advertising Manager's office, spending time going through a personal document of mine that they somehow found on the internet. This document contained clearly proprietary information such as personal information of my wife, myself and my children, as well as legal, medical and financial account passwords and information. I don't know who was given this information or what was done with it, but I would like to find out. I can't imagine any legitimate reason for such activity under the circumstances. My checking account was breached several years ago and I had to file a police report and deal with Bank of America security people. And I have no way of knowing how that took place. I don't know if their behavior is legal. Individuals working on Cape Cod Times business had and continue to have passwords and access to my internet server. The destruction of evidence is especially significant in this case, for several reasons. It is clear that CCT withheld key documents in negotiations with me, and I personally witnessed as their employee their business model of setting aside facts and replace them with falsehoods. The manager I accused of fraud against advertisers spent his last 2 days at work cleaning out the hard drive of his computer in front of all of us, yet I was walked out the front door, unable to gather countless personal papers and effects. Yet still, I turned over hundreds of email communications though discovery, but CCT did not turn most of those same documents over, even though they are communications between me and management, and while they retain access to the computers those communications were created on. And now owned by News Corp, there are additional reasons to be concerned about how evidence is treated: (N.J. company's site accessed by News Corp. subsidiary, lawyer said. Published: Wednesday, July 20, 2011. News Corp. acknowledged at a 2009 trial over hacking that computers at the company’s U.S. marketing arm were used to access a rival’s password-protected website.) (Hacking Plaintiffs Allege a Coverup. LONDON Feb 25, 2012. Victims of voice-mail interception by News Corp.'s defunct News of the World tabloid have put forth evidence that they say shows the company "sought to conceal the extent of its wrongdoing" by making false statements and destroying emails and computers.) "The News Of The World was in the business of holding others to account. It failed when it came to itself"Rupert Murdoch    *2. Transferring the domain name assets I seek in rescission to parent company. My lawsuit seeks rescission of the sale. Yet we are in Massachusetts courts because Cape Cod Times claimed there was no diversity issue in Federal Court that this should be a state case because they are autonomous from their parent company, Dow Jones, a Delaware corporation. However, within the past year+ Cape Cod Times has transferred ownership of the domain name assets I seek in Barnstable Superior Court, to that parent company's name and control. So the Times no longer controls the very assets we seek in the lawsuit, Dow Jones Media Group does. Worse, several have been allowed to expire and have been registered by other parties, forever lost -(http://whois.domaintools.com/capecodrealestate.com).

"Here, there is no evidence in the record (aside from Plaintiff's bare allegations) that CCT's conduct rose to the "level of rascality and egregiousness necessary to support a finding of a violation of c. 93A." Summary Judgment Decision... Barnstable Superior Court Judge.

A) Summary Judgment - How the truth is hiding in broad daylight! The sale took place on October 31, 2002. President and Publisher Peter Meyer and Cape Cod Times' lawyers have convinced the Superior Court Judge that product "Bundling" wasn't even conceived by CCT until January 2003, 3 months after they purchased my business under a revenue share agreement.

"Bundling" is simply selling an advertisement in two different venues, for a single rate. In MY case, that meant Cape Cod Times was selling a Real Estate Book / Internet Bundle to the same advertisers that together we planned sell Internet advertising to upon the sale of my business to them. Cape Cod Times then arbitrarily decided to consider the "RE Book Bundle" a print product, and attributed 90% of all revenues from the sale of the Bundle to the Print Department, with only 10% going to Internet Department.

Nobody in their right mind would have sold their business under a Revenue Share model if they knew that Bundles could be abused in such a fashion and that the seller was actually planning on using the resources that attract you to them, in competition against you. Which is exactly what Cape Cod Times did.

So now comes Cape Cod Times and they tell the honorable court that they didn't even "conceive" of bundling until January 2003, several months after the sale. They are trying to say that after 8 months of tough negotiations about 1% and 2% issues, that 3 months after the sale they simply conceived of placing revenues in another jar, out of my revenue share agreement. That already fails ethics 101.

But the Cape Cod Times has done worse. The Times knows how bad that would look if they actually had this Bundle program in place while negotiating with me and denying that anything else would effect the "net". So they try and tell the court it only took place after the sale. That is false. And I can show multiple ways that it is false.

Barnstable Superior Court placed significant  weight on CCT statements and Affidavits assuring the Court that Bundles weren't even conceived until after the sale (View Full Summary Judgment Decision Here):

To Be Clear! CC Times attorneys attack my "bald allegation", even as there is a document in evidence proving I am correct.

"Real Estate Merger Analysis, Attachment C". Is by far the most important single document in this matter (Although we don't know what might be in Attachment A, B or any others.) This is clearly a Cape Cod Times document where they are projecting revenues in anticipation of purchasing my business. And they are doing so while there are at least 6 months left in 2002 (*2002 for 6 months). This document shows CCT accounting for projected revenues from "Real Estate Book Bundle" for 2002 and throughout the deal. That is the purpose of the document! CC Times has Never brought this forward. They tell the courts they didn't even "conceive" of Bundles until 2003.

"Real Estate Merger Analysis, Attachment C" Listed as Tab "M" in the Rule 9A Joint Appendix of our Barnstable Superior Court lawsuit.

It is very important to view the rest evidence with the knowledge that this Document existed while they were negotiating with me! The fact they withheld it from me, which would seem to necessitate collusion to do so, itself speaks volumes.

#C) Advertising Manager Molly Evans and Internet Manager Bob Kempf, Discuss the 2002 Real Estate Book "Bundle" with two other Cape Cod Times managers. The even discuss the specifics of the 11.4% revenue share they negotiated among themselves in 2002. This is the Bundle that Cape Cod Times NOW tell Judge Nickerson, and he relies on, was not conceived until 2003!

#D) Below is yet another example of the Real Estate Book "Bundling" of real estate advertising Prior to 2003. July 2002 - One Price and the Realtor's ads go in the Real Estate Book in Print AND Online. So Cape Cod Times was actually selling advertising in this "Bundle" in July 2002 - Just as they were making offers to buy my business... and to me and hiding it! Here is a link to this evidence.

As noted by the judge and quoted above, I think all parties can agree that "Bundling was never discussed during negotiations".
Cape Cod Times wants the court to believe that was because the bundling concept was developed "AFTER" the sale.
They do so with good cause, because if Bundling was conceived prior to the sale, they have a problem.

The timeframe of when Bundling was conceived is obviously an extremely important element to this lawsuit. Yet in Deposition in 2010 they come with only speculation about when this product "bundling" began:

August 23, 2010 Deposition of Cape Cod Time's President and Publisher Peter Meyer:

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. .......

Only 6 months LATER they now tell the Court Exactly when Bundling was conceived:
(February 1, 2011 Memorandum in Support of Defendant Cape Cod Times Motion For Summary Judgment.)

*In January, 2003 AFTER the contract had been executed, CCT developed a marketing concept which was a combination...
*... uncontested evidence in the record that the bundling plan wasn't even hatched until months after contract execution.

Yet #B above is a Cape Cod Time's own 2002 Revenue Projection which specifically includes "Real Estate Book Bundle".

The next conversation should go something like this . . .  Yes Your Honor, allow us to explain... You see, we made a document to measure revenues for 2002 a product we didn't conceive of until 2003.

 

HOW ARE EACH OF THEM GOING TO EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING?:
Item B, is THAT January 9 2003 letter from Kempf to the Print and Advertising Managers - "For Internal Consideration Only" and they CCd me. (I Never saw another document so marked or handled in 5 years working there)

The Times assures the judge "in January 2003, AFTER the contract had been executed, Cape Cod Times developed....". So the Times would have the court believe this "proposal" was a brand new concept introduced on Jan 9th 2003 which they hadn't otherwise considered until after the sale. And the judge ruled accordingly.  Well, 6 people were party to that email alone, I assure you several will testify that this was NOT the first time Bundling was conceived.

The judge states in his decision "In his affidavit, Meyer states that such product bundling began in "early 2003".

If they had conceived of Bundles but withheld that from me as we were negotiating terms, that would have been conduct which attained a level of rascality that would raise an eyebrow of someone inured to the rough and tumble of the world of commerce. But they didn't justhide the concept, they hid the fact.

And then lied to the court about it. And then allowed the court to believe this Jan 9 email was some brand new proposal. So
they're printing Bundles in 2002, yet tell the court they didn't even conceive of them until 2003.

That isn't the 1st time i've seen the fabrication of documents to disguise the improper actions by this company! But this one is directly made to reassure the court in it's decision, signed by attormey of Cape Cod Times. These people present false documents and make false statements at every turn in this case!

#E) On October 16, 2002, exactly 2 weeks prior to closing and months after the initially scheduled August closing date - Fontaine asks Cape Cod Times Management, in writing "Tell me what IS IT LIMITED TO? What other factors effect the net? That is a BIG TIME legitimate question for me to ask. If you can define it, is there some reason you can't define it in the agreements?" Yet even as we can now show that they were well aware of "Bundles", that the REST of their sales staff were effectively out in the market selling this product to Realtors, in direct competition with what would be my Revenue Share Agreement, with 90% of the revenues to be credited to the Print Department, bypassing the Online Department, They identify NOTHING.  They KNOW at this time that Bundles effect the Net because Print & Online Departments have already negotiated that split between themselves (#C Above). They know Bundles will "effect the net" big time because their own projections say so (#B Above), Yet never once do they even use the term "Bundles" in over 8 months of negotiations. In fact, to this day they tell the court that my claim is nothing more than a "Bald allegation", and top management of this company actually file false affidavits with the court in order to deceive them as well. So while attempting to keep the term "But Not Limited To" in the agreement, what appears to be a subtle distinction, is actually quite important. Only I didn't know it. They did. Worse yet, they agree to remove the term "But Not Limited To" from the P&S, and in fact DO remove it in this email (which we have), but the P&S which they produced and which we signed exactly two weeks later, has that term back in place.  So that NOW, they take the position that they can price everything as "we choose", and tell the court that Fontaine is simply not happy with the results and wants another bite at the apple. Imagine iselling your business, the means to support YOUR family, to a large corporation who you assumed would be ethical, yet they conspire to negotiate by deception? I did.

"WHAT OTHER FACTORS EFFECT THE NET?"

CCT wants it to be UNLIMITED. 2 weeks before closing. Which is 2 months after the scheduled closing (which makes it one hell of a time for them to still be hiding relevant information from me!) The subject is the "deal documents". They KNOW that Bundles "effect the net" THEY SAY NOTHING! And @ [ROBERT KEMPF] they reluctantly agree to change terms, and actually delete that term from these "Deal Documents".

#F) So, unsuccessful in that attempt to deceive me into unfavorable contractual terms, they secretly bring the Old Agreement to Closing - granting themselves back the terms they had wanted all along!

Again, when you realize that they knew their Bundles were already in place and there was a 10-1 split in favor of print, this shows why this wording was important to them. Especially since they end up using the "COSTS AND CHARGES" of the print part of Bundles as justification for the 10-1 split! As is often the case in life, this could have been avoided had they been honest.

IT WOULD BE A COLD DAY THAT ANYONE WOULD HAVE KNOWINGLY ALLOWED THIS 10-1 ARRANGEMENT TO BE ALLOWED.

How Ironic! They now tell the court that Fontaine knew very well what was in that document. Yet either they themselves DIDN'T know what was in the agreement, or they intentionally committed fraud. Again. Again. . . .

*So when court states in it's Decision "nothing in the P&S prohibited "Bundling" products specifically........" And Plaintiff admits Bundles were never mentioned... They are right. The misrepresentations by CCT are the precise reason nothing in the P&S addresses prohibited Bundling! They denied it's existence AND altered the agreement.

#G) 4th Way to show that  Bundles were in place in 2002 may be The Most Effective! The Archives.
2000/2002 Promo for the RE Book Bundle - Prior to the sale, they market it as advertiser gets "online at no added charge" Pre-sale price for 1 full page shows $225. http://web.archive.org/web/20020812124634/www.capecoddirectories.com/capeathome/marketing.htm

2003/2004 Promo for the Rental Book Bundle - Post Sale - now shows them marketing the print portion of the book as a "Bonus": Post-sale price for 1 full page shows $405. http://web.archive.org/web/20031125025338/capecodtimesservices.com/Documents/rental04.pdf

#H)The $100,000 issue:
Cape Cod Times Motion in Support of Summary Judgment - they write: "According to Fontaine, the baseline number of $100,000 was to be based on CCT's net revenue for the year 2002. Id. There isn't a scintilla of evidence that such representation took place." They better check that one again... They would have the court believe that on September 30th we just agreed out of nowhere there would be a $100,000 deductible each year.. as if I wasn't ever going to ask what their sales were as we were approaching August 2002, the closing date on all their P& S Drafts - until August passed.

Below is specifically how they Misrepresented that $100,000 number:
Cape Cod Times has claimed all along, and judge mentions in summary decision, that Times notified Fontaine at the end of September that the number would be $75,000 and not $100,000. The Times actually claims it was "negotiated". The Court suggests this was plenty of time for me to back out of the deal. I would like the court to have appreciated that this deal was always scheduled to close in August per the CCT P&S drafts throughout. Cape Cod Times had everything, passwords, finances, client lists.. I had fired my webmaster and bought off a former partner.  Cape Cod Times had control of many of the domain names by August 10th - as shown below.

The Highlight & Evidence of their collusion therefore would be 8/9/02 when I tell them I rely on $100k and start to transfer the domain names to them, and 8/10/02 when all 3 Management knows I am making that reliance, yet also appear to know it is a false one. In light of the other "failures" in honesty by these people, one might ask how they hang their ethical hats on informing me of something in late September that they were aware I was relying on since the initial representation on June 20, again on August 9th as I send them my assets?

On August 9th & 10th, all 3 managers colluded to withhold material information so that I would transfer assets to them.

Yet look at how Cape Cod Times describes that $100,000 "Negotiation" in their Statement of Fact :

#24 “They started negotiating about a baseline amount. The parties negotiated that there would be an offset to revenue of $100,000 annually which represented the estimated average annual real estate Internet revenue CCT would have to have earned over the next five years independent of the merger."

#26 “During negotiations, to determine the baseline number, Fontaine requested “Kempf’s best guesstimate as to what CCT’s revenue might be for 2002"

#31 “In a September 30, 2002 email, Kempf suggested to Fontaine that for calculating Fontaine’s Net Revenue Share (“NRS”), they use $100,000 as a “base line” and a projection of the annual average real estate Internet revenue CCT expected to independently yield (and exceed) in the ensuing five years, independent of merger.".

Really? September 30? "Negotiating"? WE expected to close in August! All their P&S Drafts are pre-dated "August", and they want the court to believe that $100,000 figure wasn't even discussed until the last day of September.

"Negotiated" -"suggested" the $100,000 number?  #H Above shows how $100,000 was introduced into this deal - It was included By CCT in the contractual terms of an offer to purchase my business. Pretty darn clear to see. Below is an August P&S with the $100,000 already determined. And they tell the court that in September they suggest $100,000??

A "baseline" - "projection" which was it. September 28, 2002 Kempf to Fontaine "Our target for next year under this scenario is $150k". SURE - THEY THINK THEY'RE GOING TO DO $150,000 NEXT YEAR, BUT THEY EXPECTED TO DO AN AVERAGE OF $100,000 IN THE ENSUING 5 YEARS.

September 30th? WE have their August 13th P&S showing the $100,000 deductable!

 

They had good estimates. They withheld them and concocted different ones which they gave me to rely upon. They then

$100,000 Issue - ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVE: They apparently didn't get the same message about their Projections!:

CCT used the term"100,000 Baseline"  as a tool to cover for their misrepresentations:

September 30, 2002, a month AFTER we we scheduled to close on my deal, as I question their representation of already doing $100,000 as they had indicated: "It's pretty simple really. The $100k/ is simply a baseline - deliberately set at a very fair level.."

May 21, 2003 while inducing me to help them commit circulation fraud against C21 advertisers Kempf writes: "Bottom line:  it's a shared risk approach" VERY IMPORTANT: I need you to support the 100k impressions/month baseline. Trust me, Bob, we will get there and quickly".

A different look at how they used that "100,000 Baseline" term in misleading me as well as advertisers:

#I) Select - Relevant Molly Evans Deposition quotes:

#J) Why casued the to create 4 different Projections,and admit to 3 of them?

The following Projection(s) given by CCT with the July 2+-, 2002 Offer- is completely different than that "Real Estate Merger Analysis" Projection they withheld from me and which I show above. Why they had to make 3 more after having one THEY relied on and made prior to July 2002 ."Real Estate Merger Analysis" ? Molly Evans deposition which I quote above she talks about the projections... "I just remember that we spent some time on it and wanted to be as accurate as we could"

"Real Estate Merger Analysis" estimates total revenues of $1,300,000 in sales during the deal. This unsolicited projection they gave me includes a projection of up to $4,300,000 during the deal. I Hope Molly didn't spend too much time being as "accurate as we could", because her estimates were some $3 million apart from what they themselves relied upon and what they represented to me they had a projected!

Molly Evans Deposition 2010 - Page 60 is asked "How did the 20 percent get agreed upon? Where did that number come from?".  She answers..."we had to come up with three different scenarios, financial scenarios, on an Excel spread sheet". But Molly - Cape Cod Times did their calculation for the initial offer in March 2002, did you forget to mention what had to be the very 1st scenario, "Real Estate Meager Analysis" (Doc #B above)??? These unsolicited projections were given to me in offers in late June and then July 2002, long after the required 6 months remaining in 2002 that Real Estate Merger Analysis refers to and includes.

Molly states "I remember that Peter (President Meyer) and Bob Kempf and I poured over it and poured over it. Bob Kempf had prepared it, massaged it and massaged it. We kept looking at it trying to come up with, because we were new in this business ourselves, what the revenues might look like going forward.......". So this means the 3 of them HAD to be "pouring over" the very same products shown in the hidden projection "Real Estate Merger Analysis" (#B Above) - Hence all 3 managers of the Cape Cod Times would have been Very well aware of "Real Estate Book Bundle" in mid 2002. What other variables could they possibly have used?

Kempf email to Fontaine - 1 Month prior to closing - Sept 28, 2002.." For the purposes of the deal we are assuming $100k/yr over the five years of the deal.  Our pattern (and expectations) for CapeCodOnline and the real estate vertical demand aggressive year over year growth.  This has been our model and will continue to be our model so I don't forsee any shortfall on the Cape Cod Times contribution to the real estate vertical over the term of the deal."

In 2002 Kempf assures me of this pattern of aggressive year over year growth. in 2010 Molly says "we were new in this business ourselves".

So 8 months of negotiations where they never once mentioned The Real Estate Book Bundles, so I could have asked key questions like "how will this effect ME" and "what are the numbers and the split" or "so will the other staff be competing with me". but they didn't.

#K) Below is a CCT Document, show that @ 10% My earned commissions account for over 100% of all sales. Over $1,000,000 of them! That puts Molly Evans Deposition into context!

P14 - talking about CCT revenue at spring of 2002. "We didn't have much at that time. It was just the beginning stages with the internet and we were building our business models"...... "So we were just getting started".

P18 -  Regarding Fontaine "He was brought on to be the internet real estate salesperson" - "to sell real estate internet advertising"..." - "his primary function was to sell more advertising on that website".

P40- Asked about Fontaine "He wasn't selling. He was not happy at his job. He was difficult to manage, and he was a poor performer in the sales arena, which was his primary function". - "He wasn't selling"

  Their records show I was responsible for over 100% of all sales.


Makes one wonder the motivation of Ad Director Molly Evan's Deposition regarding me :

#L) The following doc is my reply to CCT upon receiving their projection and offer to purchase.
June 23, 2002 - I am responding to their offer..."Relating to the offer". Question number 4 I ask if I should be under the assumption that CCT currently takes in $100,000. In the document below this one CCT responds "4) your assumption is correct". Not the ONLY reason I rely on the $100,000 figure, but an initial and important one. Kempf says in deposition it was just speculation "I though Bob knew that".

 

Takeaways from this following email:
*They are replying to my June 23/02 email from above, which itself is a response to the offer & projections they gave me on Fri 6/21/02.

Item #1 they claim to have an projection that going from 18% to 20% could mean as much as $55,000. "1) According to our estimates, increasing the revenue share from 18% to 20% through 2006 could potentially increase payment to you by $20,000 to $55,000.". Try making that math work with their secret projection - "Real Estate Merger Analyses".  It doesn't.

Item #2 they convince me to leave 02 in the mix and discount 2007 "to help us focus on a positive outcome from the outset". Sure.

Item #3 they mention all the ads that will apply including "property listings" which they come to find out were ALSO selling under the Real Estate Book Bundle, with 90% of the revenue diverted away from me, to print's benefit. These are the MLS listings that you see on Document #5 - Below) where they want to give them all away for free to the MLS. During the middle of our deal. *It Kind of makes you wonder how they projected $1,200,000 for 2006? Let's see - $14,000 from Real Estate Bundles..... and......?????

Item #4 answer my question #4 from above "Your Assumption is correct". Pretty simple to me. They gave me an offer and projection and BOTH had a $100,000 deductible. I answer the offer asking if they are doing $100,000, and they say yes.

Item #6 shows the additional domain name assets they received in exchange for this $20,000-$55,000 benefit.

Molly Evans Depo says "I just remember that we spent some time on it and wanted to be as accurate as we could". Yet they ignored the first detailed projection they had made? And instead they give me projects up to $4,300,000 in revenues over the deal. The one they withheld projects $1,300,000. Molly should have said they tried to be as accurate as they could, give or take $3,000,000.

Among the many interesting questions i'd like to ask each of them under oath (separately) is "that $1,200,000 projection you came up with for 2006. If you projected $14,000 of that to come from Bundles, and clearly wanted Fontaine to spend some of his 70 hour work week also selling those Bundles for that $14,000, where is the math showing how you came up with the other $1,186,000 that you projected? Especially in light of the fact that by 2006, Manager Kate McMahon is ALSO angry at me for not selling Bundles... and wants to give ads away to CC MLS for free (see Document #14 Below)???

Century 21 was Kate Mcmahon's account until early 2003 when Kempf took it from her and assigned it to me. And then the following ordeal began to unfold as they wanted me to put my name on contracts and projections that contained false numbers. Later I would find a document between McMahon & Kempf related to the C21 Group and how they were so dissatified with CCT's work that they had mentioned "legal". So naturally the move was to give Fontaien the account and place his name on these false projections, and have him sell it, while Kempf went off to a meeting with small Realtors's office with Kate.

*It's past 5:00 pm when he sends this to me. Just another day that just gets started when all the others employees were going home.

#N) A little bid of sad irony is seen in this May 20, 2003 email Peter Meyer sent to me about "ethics".. because the next day MY manager Bob Kempf tried to get me to give false circulation numbers to advertisers in a $100,000 proposal.. But Peter Meyer apparently wasn't so interested in ethics that he would mess up a $100,000 sale.

*My ugly, akward and quite unexpected argument with management on this matter resulted in them agreeing to bring that $4,200 monthly rate down to $3,000 a month. They still were going to lie, but needed to shut me up. Since this deal went on for 4 years, that $1,200 monthly difference saved C21 about $57,000. Since I was earning 10% Sales Commission and 20% Revenue Share, that is over $17,000 of personal income I was forfeiting.

**The documented email exchanges between all parties in this matter is incriminating, extensive and available.

Especially enlightening:

May 21 Kempf to Fontaine: "I need you to support the 100k impression/month baseline" as clearly not true. Hence I didn't.

May 22 Kempf to Fontaine: "Ah, I see what you mean about the May figures. I will change the language to reflect "anticipated" June page impressions". He had the correct numbers, but will give them fasle projections instead. Sound familiar?

June 19 Fontaine to Meyer "There is a situation relating to the C21 Group that could potentially turn into a serious problem for the company".

June 30 to Molly Evans "I respectfully disagree that this overcharge of C21 was unintentional. and will prove same if need be".

!! KEY POINT RE THIS FRAUD "100K BASELINE" !! Might seem like a subtle difference, but it's not when you're on the other side of the deal. You will note that they used this term both when negotiating with me AND when negotiating the C21 the Contract. But the Fact is that the 100k number actually meant NOTHING in either case. Here is how in My Case as in the C21 Contract, it was used to deceive:

They NOW say in court that they never represented $100,000 to me, that it was just a "Baseline". However, as I have shown above in "H" - They were happy to allow me to mistakenly rely on the $100,000 as a real number. Having themselves assumed an August closing, they knew the sale would close before that number could have been proven wrong. The point is they Used that 100k for me to rely upon, even as there was no basis in fact.

Well they used the Same move on Century 21! He tells them that the "Basis" is $.25 a search. That's what all Realtors (including C21 Indivdual offices) were already paying per SMAD search. But he's not going to charge them based on $.25 each, as they would obviously conclude! He's not even going to charge them based on how many searches they will get, he's going to charge them based on the "Impressions" they will get. However, On The very Proposal itself he's lying to them about the number of impressions we actually have, asking me to join him "I need you to support the 100,000 baseline..".These Realtors understand $.25 each, they DON'T understand "100,000 impressions", it was just something technical element Cape Cod Times included in the proposal. Designed to decieve.
Knowingly false, using the same method and terminology they used in defrauding me!
In court now they claim I am simply took a risk in selling to them and am unsatisfied with the result.
In the email exchanges between CCT and myself about this C21 fraud they tell me "they are taking a shared risk".

GREAT LINE! "If reality differs, so be it". Well Reality WAS different Bob, and your "reality" cost those good folks a lot of money!
 

Have to confront my Boss "Does this really have anything to do with a "25 cents per" variable?"

#O) SMAD Overcharge.

The Image to the Left shows examples of Specific communications where I warn my employer about how much C21 and others are overpaying from what they thought they had agreed to. - C21 was to get 35% of all SMADS or 17,500 SMADS per month. But 100% of our searches never reach 17,500, EVER.

The Image to the the Right shows what a "SMAD" is. An MLS search that is done on the website, sponsored by a Realtor. An Ad unit.

A "SMAD" was our name for a "Smart Ad Search", and was simply an MLS search on the our website. Each MLS search would be offered by a licensed MLS Realtor. There might be 25 different Real estate offfices in the rotation at one time. The Realtor who "sponsored" that search was charged by the search. Some bought 300 a month, others thought they were buying 17,500 per month. Our site visitors would do that MLS search, and the actual results would open up on the website of that Realtor who is showing to be "sponsoring" that search for that visitors view. *They offered 35% of all "inventory" to one client, and then claimed that would result in them receiving 17,500 per month. But when 100% your inventory never ever ever reaches 17,500, that means alot of your advertisers are paying for ads they are not getting. It's Circulation Fraud!

#P) To The Left is The accounting CCT gave the C21 Group of the SMAD agreement. C21 pays $3,000 per month and is told they get 17,500 Smads per month - or $.17 each. In 2005 they paid $.97 each. This is apparently what CCT told me was C21's "Shared Risk".

Remember #N above "Does this really have anything to do with a "25 cents per" variable?"
Here's the answer, it had NOTHING to do with it. They were overcharged by $100,000!

#Q) Below are communications sent to CCT Management showing Smads sold out and oversold. For years.

#R) Jan 31, 2006 Fontaine files whistleblower complaint against my employer.

#S) I just return from sick leave for stress over deception of an advertiser, and inform my manager that C21 Owner "Doug A" is contacting me at home, at night. I remind her they were told they would get 17,500 for their $3,000, but were actually going to get 2,200+-.

#T) The Auditors from Dow Jones who took my whistleblower complaint at a restaurant at Cape Cod Mall in Hyannis Mass. I made it quite clear how the advertisers were being misled through circulation fraud. I also tried explained to them that I felt I had also been deceived in a similar fashion regarding the sale of my business to Cape Cod Times. These two auditors told me they got permission to come to Hyannis to go over my complaint from high management of Dow Jones, who would at that time have included Andrew Langhoff.

Mr.Langhoff had his own issues with circulation irregularities, so i'm not sure how seriously my complaint was taken. A publication that bases advertising fees on its circulation should not be tampering with or overstating that circulation. It would be interesting to see if the advertisers were ultimatelty informed of this issue?

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kelly-novak/7/706/20

U) Clear evidence of pure Retaliation:
#W is November 01, 2005 where management goes out of their way to contact me at home and thank me for the good work.
#X is December 23, 2005 where management gives me multiple "Exceeds standards" in my annual report.
#7 (Further down)  HR Manager's notes me calling her from ER Jan 9, 2006, saying Kate wanted me to lie to a customer.
#4 (Further down)  The Retaliation letter they made me sign on Feb 3, 06 addressing my return to work on Jan 23, 06.

There were 9 days I worked between Dec 23 Manager's Report, where I "exceeded standards" in and Jan 23rd date when I returned to work as mentioned in the letter informing me "you seem to you seem unable to sustain in the most routine of tasks..."

I went from pats on the back to a kick in the ass. Why? What had so drastically changed in those 9 days?
I had called my employer from the Emergency Room saying I didn't want to lie to another advertiser!

THIS IS THE DISCONNECT! The company at that point has completely ignored hundreds of written notifications from me requesting help from overtime. The entire Internet Division that was 'just starting out' in 2002 is gone... Webmaster is out of the loop, Kate is no longer sales, Kempf and all his projections (and contracts) he made with advertisers is gone, Molly Evans is gone. I personally sell all advertising and run CapeCodRealEstate.com & CapeCodRental.com, the largest real estate portal around, I run 60+- websites for our clients using MLSStudio, another 15 websites that I manually update for clients. "Just starting out" has become 300 various advertising clients. And everyone else is gone. In Jan 2006 The guy who built MLSStudio informs CCT he is getting another job, and that program is falling apart. (Lawsuit threats by two major Realtors i've since found in discovery from 2002 will show these issues were in place when I was negotiating the sale).

#W) Kate Mcmahon now my Internet Manager, Nov 05 I am contacted at home and told that my work is appreciated:

#X (Referred to as "V" in video) Next month, December 05 my yearly Manager's Report comes out.

 

Friday Jan 6, 2006, I end up going from my Manager's Office to The CAPE COD HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM.

#7) HR Director Leslie Terry re my call from the Cape Cod Hospital Emergency Room to inform them I was there.

 

#W) By 2004 our college trained webmaster admits he doesn't understand the program running our real estate website, but also running the sites of some 55-60 of the busiest brokerages on Cape Cod, me having sold the program to them all. End of 2004 Kempf leaves CCT, soon after Molly Evans leaves CCT.




#4(Also referred to as "X" in Video)THE DAY I RETURN FROM WORK THEY JUMP ALL OVER ME! -. From Dec 23 2005 until my return from being admitted overnight to Cape Cod Hospital for work related stress, there were days that I worked. 9 work days since that Manager's report. But then I made the mistake of not being willing to lie to an advertiser again, just as I had with Bob Kempf I had truthfully noted that Kate McMahon also wanted me to deceive advertisers. Yet now, January 23... I am a bum, I steal company time, I cant do simple tasks. Retaliation.

Again, There were 9 days I worked between Dec 23 Manager's Report, where I "exceeded standards" in and Jan 23rd date when I returned to work as mentioned in the letter informing me "you seem to you seem unable to sustain in the most routine of tasks..."
 

bb

This letter prsented to me upon my return from sick leave makes me sick each time I contemplate it!  Consider, Item #7 above tells us that HR manager quotes me calling her from the Emergency Room stating the reason from stress attack was about a converstation with my Manager about not wanting to lie to a customer. So Naturally, Peter Meyer helps that manager craft this letter for both of them to confront me with upon my return to work! We dont hear much about them questioning Kempf about ripping off C21, or asking Kate about why she would lie to an advertiser. Instead they make sure to establish that I am the problem.   1) "While searching for customer information on your work desktop... TermsOfUse.com.. please refrain from conducting outside business while at work". So while i'm out sick, having accused her of requiring I lie to a customer, she's rifling through my computer. She finds a domain name I own mentioned among tens of thousands of files - "TermsOfUse.com.  Had she rifled further through the computer she would have seen the communication about TermsOfUse.com I had with Kempf when he was the boss of both of us. She had been just a part-time nobody who either had Bryan our webmaster do her web duties, and Kempf do her sales. Craigslist was in the news for a discriminitory advertisement by one of it's posters.  As a real estate broker for many years I felt my employer (and our advertisers) should at least try and be protected with Fair Housing language, and disclaimers. So I put together a few web documents with the fair housing logos and Terms Of Use wording - to send to Kempf. Sure, i've got 200-300+ communications that show me showing them how I am working myself sick. Pleading with them for help.. showing THEIR work product 6am to 10pm same day, Sundays, holidays, my vacations... I refer to those hours and that work in this presentation. And they're going to accuse me somehow of doing business on company time? Seriously?  They were obviously setting me up by creating a document such as this. I just returned to work having last left to go to the Emergency Room! They know my instincts were to respond with actual facts. . .  so this isn't "so how can we help?" - it is - You are in our way and we will make your job impossible! What The Times Overlooked while instead documenting this trumped up nonsense about me is addressed in the next subject following this letter - "Dont send more email or I will take legal action" -  The liability CCT placed on our advertisers, without the knowledge of those advertisers was enormous, and management chose to be oblivious, again. Bob Fontaine didn't enjoy that same luxury.   2) You do not appear pleased to be working at the Times..". Here I must admit she was correct! No, I wasn't pleased! I don't like working 60-70 hour weeks, day and night, 24/7, coming home sick or being continually intimidated or required to steal from the very people who helped me build the very business that you're now stealing from me. The HR Manager's notes via discovery (noted below) shows I called from the HR and mentions that I didn't want to lie about things to a customer.  So both Kate & Meyer know i'm calling her a liar, I had already gone through this when they ripped off C21, yet Meyer allows my return to be in that context. 3) You pressed for an absolute, set work schedule, but..." . I had JUST returned from the hospital that their comp carrier paid for, and they want to tell me I cant have a set schedule. As if "your health is our first concern" was meant to be anything but intentionally insulting.  She's my boss knows I am accusing her of lying and it's obvious that Meyer participated in the drafting of this letter! As if they have other employees working multiple shifts a day.  Not quite how Peter Meyer told me it would be when he gave me the 1st offer in March 2002 "We can work together to finalize details of the job description, but this is generally our view.  As we proceed, you will find that we are quite flexible and will work to meet your expectations." Then, as I find out after the sale, they created that job description on their own dated July 2002, so when we closed in October 02 Meyer had me sign an Employment Agreement that refers to the job description. THE RESULT OF THAT TRICK WAS THAT CCT NOW HAD COMPLETE CONTROL OVER THE TERMS OF MY EMPLOYMENT. And at the end of this Feb 2 2006 meeting, I was handed my 4th "revised" Job Description, Dated Feb 2006. The few changes of the position now required me to be of assistance to all print, classified and phone room staff. In addition to being the salesperson and webmaster for some 300 advertisers. 4) They even managed to complain about not letting them know about my health while I was having stress tests done on my heart.

Retaliation explains this Logic - They say that before the sale they were "just starting out" -Then you bring in a employee (ME) who is responsible for about $1,000,000 of $1,000,000 of your sales. You've changed his Job Description, again, so that he is also assigned to help your print team, phone room & classified ad staff, he is your webmaster, he does all your sales, he even ends up in the hospital. And you want to fire him because he didn't turn in a slip? Retaliation.

#Z) Overtime Complaint - U.S. Department of Labor - Had to be 3000+ Hours!:
This company lied to the US Department of Labor to save themselves from paying me $250,000-$300,000 in overtime wages!
Having worked (and able to prove) 20-30-40+ hours of overtime every single week since the day I sold, on Feb 7, 06 I file a wage complaint with U.S. Department of Labor. Claiming I was misclassified as "Exempt". That would equate to several hundred thousand dollars they would owe me under the law. May 7, 06 DOL agent Carl Loria comes to CCT to investigate. Within 3+- hours of the DOL Investigator leaving the property, CCT leaves a notice on my desk warning me that a "reliable source" has told them I was threatening violence against the company, and threaten me with termination. Per the Employee Handbook dispute resolution policy, I deny the charge and ask for a hearing so I can confront the accuser. They would not identify the accuser.

I was internally classified by CCT as a Salesperson:

So how did The US Department of Labor conclude"The firm considers him their real estate manager with full responsibility for the online real estate business including supervision" (Per a Freedom of Information Act request to see the Department of Labor's Final Report) *So somehow CCT was sure to add that I was a Manager "with supervision" because that exemption required you be in charge of 2 people - Well there was the 17 year old Intern "Adam".. but he didn't help me at all and simple walked away 2 weeks later, and there was the non employee retired guy I met once from Falmouth, Mike Knowles, but he didn't offer any help with matters defined in my Job Description(s). Try finding the word 'Manager" in any of my Job Descriptions of Employment Agreement.

Molly Evans says in Deposition "he was hired to do sales", or Kate Mcmahon in her deposition:

(I call this "Q" In Video)Q. Deposition question to Kate McMahon: So he was just going to sell internet. Was that OK with you?
A " Well, was it okay with me? No, it wasn't okay with me. You know, i'm a year and three months into managing a relationship I inherited. Mr. Fontaine was difficult at many turns. This was just yet again another opportunity for him to provide - -  to be difficult to a manager. So I just chose, okay, fine, if you don't want to do it, then focus on real estate online. That's fine". So I wasn't Just Sales in Internet, they wanted me to ALSO be "Sales" in print? Really, and i'm the real estate manager, with supervision?

Here Is The Law:

 

#1) Who's Kidding Whom? A look at REALTY as I return from the hospital in early 2006. With Kempf and Evans gone, Bryan out of the loop, I was left to with what had grown to some 300 adverisers, webmaster for some 60+ Realtor websites, where the level of detail had already exceeded what our webmaster could keep up with.

Below on the left shows the Database code I was "forced" to deal with ALL THE TIME, lest all the Realtor clients who trusted and bought this program from me would think I let them down. On the bottom right is one of the Sales Coordinators that represents the "Resources" that CC Times now says I should have "Taken Advantage of". I'd like them to try and describe exactly what it was among all the things I was doing, that some kid out of college for a few months was going to help me with? Sales? MLSStudio Database? Was she going to help me help print and classified as my new Feb 06 Job Description requires? Seriously!

#2) Job Deception instead of Job Description! On the bottom right of this doc I have super imposed words from CCT President Peter Meyer's March 20, 2002 initial offer to purchase my business. He talks about how they will work around my expectations in defining the Job Description. Yet we see that on July 17th, 2002, over 3 months prior to the closing, they have already created their own Job Description, without me. And mark it as "Exempt". Since the Employment Agreement refers to the Job Description, and CCT has hijacked that wording from me, they have complete control over what it says. - I would suggest the may be "reasonably modified" they rely on was in fact unreasonable! As if I would have agreed to continue working 70 hours a week - I simply wouldn't have sold to them!

@2B) Important Point. My Employment Contract referred to the Employee Handbook regarding overtime... that handbook explained that only a few employees were Non Exempt, and an HONEST look at my position shows I should not have been one of them. So when Meyer lied about allow me to define the Job Description by creating it himself before the sale and marking it "exempt", then claims to be able to "Reasonable modify it", this effectively gave him complete control over this job that was supposed to be "sales".

"STOP PUTTING CLAUSES INTO YOUR CONTRACTS THAT SAY YOU CAN AMEND THE CONTRACT AT ANY TIME IN YOUR SOLE DISCRETION BY POSTING THE REVISED TERMS TO THE WEBSITE" . .

"Sign This Contract. By the Way, We Can Modify It At Any Time." Is This Enforceable?"

http://masslawblog.com/contracts/stop-putting-clauses-into-your-contracts-that-say-you-can-amend-the-contract-at-any-time-in-your-sole-discretion-by-posting-the-revised-terms-to-the-website/

#3)This is page #2 of HR Manager Leslie Terry's report on my appeal of having been accused of "threatening violence against the company". They refused to identify the person claiming to have heard me, contrary to the Employee Handbook. I spent hundreds of dollars on a Boston employment attorney to write up a denail to the claim. Since I was responsible for about 100% of all sales - if my Primary Duty wasn't sales - there wasn't a business. And since I can show that 30+ of those hours were at CCT offices, and the other 30 here from my home office, it certainly wasn't "outside sales". Molly Evans deposition claims I would not go out and do sales - So if I made those sales at Cape Cod Time's offices and then my 2nd shift at home, I would not qualify as the outside sales exemption under the law. Both of those venues are considered Cape Cod Time's offices.

#4-B) 2 Months into the Job...I have to contact the Publisher himself.

#5) 2006 - Lets give Fontaine's business away by offering MLS to place all listings in the market on the website, for free! All other staff were competing with me to sell Bundles through print at that 9-1 favoring of print, but that wasn't good enough.. Here they want to use my friendship with management of CC MLS and Board of Realtors to let them place ALL MLS listings on the website for free. Giving away the very product that makes up the sale price of my business!

Cape Cod Times, my employer, sends this to me at home on a Saturday, for me to review and then send it out on Sunday. So they could give my business away to MLS, further circumventing my Revenue Share Agreement.

In Document #4 Above, the Feb 2005 Letter as I return from sick leave where they blame me for doing work at home..."You attributed your recent health issues in part to stress caused by work following you at home". So what do they call this?

#6) There was no "After work" for me. Here is just some examples of the actual communications describing the CCT work I was doing after work hours, all from my home, most to CCT management. All Emails are available and can easily be produced.

6A) Going back to Jan 2003 I had been asking for some help. I had Just started working for them in November.
I had gone back and checked my emails and sent Meyer a view of emails for January containing CCT business on OFF DAYS.

Yet in May 2003 we see the new C21 contract, complexity of everything increasing, Kempf writes Me that Meyer has asked him to cut Costs. They cannot identify other individuals that allowed me to work a 37.5 hour work week during my employment, period.

#7) Additional documentation of my overtime and working conditions...
"I came home and threw up", "12 hour days", "3 days off since I started", etc..

*I would inform them I had worked 60 hours in a given week, then receive my paycheck saying my hours worked were 37.5, repeated over and over again. Just like the month over month billing to advertisers through the mail on direct to their credit cards...each one charging them for advertising they didn't receive.  They stole from folks using US Mail, the phones and the internet. . . there should be a law against that.

#8) - Support? Are they kidding? CCT  "Fontaine was offered plenty of support, unfortunately he chose not to accept it". If that is really true.. then ask yourself why their words that are in evidence suggest otherwise?

Barely 7 months after the sale that brought them 150 new advertisers, they are not adding help, they are cutting costs instead:

Just 7 Months into the sale "I am on a deadline to produce a cost cutting plan" "(That's right, you hear right, cost cutting!!)". So these jerks spent 8 months telling me how ready and prepared they were, i'm working nights and weekends, and they are cutting costs.. MY name is all over the proposal. Making me the perfect scapegoat.

Statements by Cape Cod Times:
"We plan to aggressively promote the sites when our sale with you is complete"..
"We want to add 2002 and take out 2007 so we can start off positive from the start".
My 2003 MGR Report they write that firstfull year was a wash because it took longer to merge the two companies than we thought.
How unfortunate, for me.

Help Never Did Arrive! It goes on and on, in their own words, until Kempf himself is gone, Molly is gone, webmaster Bryan is completely out of the loop, and then Mike Caron who built it all tells CCT he's getting another job. That cant show you it was resolved by anything other than Bob Fontaine effectively working around the clock.

Feb 2003 Kempf "I hear you about all the constant incoming, Automation will solve some of this  but more staff of dedicated outsource will be the other half"

May 2003 Kempf "I will have some limited time to discuss tomorrow but am on deadline to produce a cost-cutting plan (that's right, you hear right, cost cutting!!) for the boss by 5PM.  So clearly their solution to needing MORE staff is to Cut Costs.

Feb 2004 Kempf is leaving at end of year (2004, not 2005 as video states) "we operate in a land of scarce resources" Can we acknowledge that as the Online RE went from "Just starting out" as Molly Evans now explains it, to Bob Fontaine doing $270,000 a year, that no further resources were provided? Kempf Left. I personally ran the largest real estate vertical in New England - And my employers do not have a clue.

They were understaffed BEFORE buying my 145+ clients and the largest real estate vertical in New England.. and THEN CUT COSTS AFTER THE SALE.

Feb 2004, the sole webmaster at Cape Cod Times, who is singularly responsible for some 20 large websites and litterally dozens of client/advertiser websites at this point in time, informs Internet Manager Bob Kempf that he no longer even understands MLSStudio, the IDX system I have sold to half the Cape Cod real estate market!

#9) Exchanges that show Defenses claims they offered me plenty of assistance is nonsense.

#10)- Anyone care to explain what drugs these people are using regarding these ridiculous "Bundles"?
Molly Evans Depo:P25 -  "I suggested that he could sell them bundles and packages that were print and internet and he could be compensated for both, so he could have some extra commissions if he sold the bundles, and he flatly refused" - Yet They hired me to do internet sales and I did $1,000,000 of $1,000,000. They must have wanted me to make that $14,000 instead!

My Manager, Bob Kempf, to me on Thursday, January 15, 2004 4:31 PMSubject: RE: Real Estate book and Bob Fontaine> Robert: I appreciate your concerns and reactions. The note below details for the other departments essentially what you and I came up with as a plan for working alongside the print folk (playing nice as we put it).  Nothing more. The priorities are Internet priorities.  You and I know that.  That's all  that really matters here.". This was my direct Boss whom I had to confront and answer to every single day, telling me to simply say "yes" so as to appease Advertising Manager Molly Evans, that we would help with Bundles. Talk about putting a guy in the middle. Does that exchange sound as If I was considered a "Manager" as Department of Labor was told by the Management of Cape Cod Times?

So what Ad Manager Molly Evans didn't know was that Kempf, my boss, was telling me that we were just shutting Molly up by telling them we'd sell Bundles. Further, This exchange not only makes Evan's comments about me in deposition seem vindictive, but also shows that the statement by defense that "any and all bundling was done to create more internet real estate revenue" to be patently false.

#10A) (I also Identfy this as "Q" in Video). Kate Mcmahon Depo: Q. So he was just going to sell internet. Was that OK with you?
A " Well, was it okay with me? No, it wasn't okay with me. You know, i'm a year and three months into managing a relationship I inherited. Mr. Fontaine was difficult at many turns. This was just yet again another opportunity for him to provide - -  to be difficult to a manager. So I just chose, okay, fine, if you don't want to do it, then focus on real estate online. That's fine".  Have these people no shame? She's referring to 2006 where they had given me a Projection prior to sale that included revenues of $1,200,000. Yet they want the ONE salesperson to help print instead? That's what happened, they changed by Jon Description for the 4th time requiring me to help Print and classified phone staff, yet tell the Department of Labor I am a Manager with authority over others.

#11) Molly Evans re Fontaine in her Deposition - P40- "He sent rambling e-mails in the middle of the night, long and full of hate and misery that Bob Kempf had to read and deal with".

Not only will she not be able to point to a single one, But CCT didn't seem to concerned with the fact that I was working 2 shifts a day, then weekends, vacations.... or that I was stressed out, coming home throwing up... which I put in writing several times. Do you EVER see anyone from Management do anything about my perpetual overtime or complaints that I was being worked sick? Do they get alot of that?

Here I am trying to tell Molly Evans, my bosses boss, what I am dealing with:

#12) An offer to purchase by business that received in the middle of negotiations... it was from an IDX vendor, I forwarded to Kempf because I told them I would be up front with them. I assumed they would be honest with me in return. I was wrong. An offer of $100,000 a year and 15% of the gross after they did $100,000. I wasn't selling to the due to weakness, I was selling because it was taking off and I knew together we could effectively own the entire market. And we could have. But it so happened I met up with some dishonest people who had a hidden agenda.


 

#13) Soneran Scanners V Perkin Elmerhttp://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=09-1089P.01A

#14) Soneran(Scanners V Perkin Elmer B - Click to view Opinon) - A key point I think need be made! Cape Cod Times now suggests that "Fontaine's Revenue share could have been zero" as if they could have said "100% goes to print and we don't even have to try".. and they also argue that "Cape Cod Times can price products as we choose"... Combined that would have created a situation where THEY completely controlled the "consideration" of this deal, through deceit.

CCT "The NRS provision of the Purchase and Sale Agreement did not guarantee Fontaine any fixed revenue amount; conceivably, Fontaine’s revenue share could have been $0" (NRT = Net Revenue Share agreement). *The only thing that allowed it to be "Net" was the fact that they switched P&S documents at closing which allowed their various costs and expenses to be "unlimited".

Defense states they tried told me they would try and that they did. If defense was required by law to try, they failed.

 

#15) is an email between me and the CCT Controller Dave Hundt. Im trying to find out what the deal is with giving Print all the revenues.. He respond that "Cape Cod Times management has the right to price all products as they see fit".... but admits the advertiser is Buying this Bundle, to get the internet part, to be on the websites I sold the times. I replied to him that he was making my point.

CCT 93a reply "Any and all bundling was done to create internet real estate revenue"... yet they expect internet to receive $7,000 from in in 02, while giving me a projection of $3,650,000.
#16) Below are Internet, Online Managers, and Advertising Manager splitting up my money: You have to wonder if they even contemplated their obligations to me under the P&S, or, if in fact, they actually conspired to create this result. I mean, they bought my business and Internet revenues were the sales price.. yet in front of me, and actually use me to defeat a beneficial result!


 

#26) Look at the conflicting claims CCT Management makes as to why Print got 90% - and only 10% went to online!

#17) This exchange showsKempf has a different reason why I receive revenues from the Bundle - His "Feeling" they should be included. So they don't pay me the 20% of the revenue per our agreement, but instead credit the Online Department 10% of the Book Bundle Sales, which is a pool I will get 20% from under the agreement. Thereby reducing my 20% to 2%.

#18)These are among the Domain names we seek in rescission. The Times has transferred control of these to their corporate parent. In some cases they have allowed the registrations to expire, and I in fact registered the Middle domain name CapeCodRealEstate.biz. This is a name that we seek to be returned, and they allowed it to drop. And the others they place ion the name of the same parent they argued in federal court they were autonomous from!

#19) Cape Cod Times Continues to Overstate Their Circulation at the expense of advertisers! Circulation Fraud! You would think after an employee (ME) filed a whistleblower complaint to The Parent Company over giving false circulation numbers to Realtors and other advertisers, they MIGHT be afraid of getting caught. Apparently not.

The Facts: Cape Cod Times continues to claim on their media page that they receive 40,000 daily visitors to CapeCodRealEstate.com, 1,200,000 per month. 40,000 visitors a MONTH might be a stretch. This Circulation Fraud has been benefitting Cape Cod Times FOR YEARS, Continuing into October 2012 - and counting. False Advertising and gross Misrepresentation which has been relied on to the detriment of countless local advertisers.

This has the EXACT same effect as if Cape Cod Times told print advertisers that their newspaper circulation of 37,000 a day was really 500,000 a day. While thye may have changed it by 2013+-, they've been getting away with it for years! How many advertisers overpaid?

AND MORE RECENTLY, and continuing as of late 2013, they make blanket statements about online circulation that are NOT CREDIBLE:
You cannot make a statement that suggests you get the same amount each month in Cape Cod market, at least if you care about accuracy. I know the traffic pattern of both these websites. NO WAY! "impressions" don't rent property! If one claims 270,000 impressions, those are likely made by about 25,000 actual "visitors" - And YOU CAN BE SURE that they are stating the Spring numbers, because 25,000 in April means 6,000+- in September, Oct, Nov... (*By The Way - If you place a logo on top and bottom of page 1, along with 10-20 various images, header, scenery, even a simple DOT, minute image = an impression. You can have 50 impressions by a single visitor who never views a single rental. ONCE THEY CLICK ON PAGE 2 IT IS 100 IMPRESSIONS. So this deceptive measurement intended to take money from Cape Cod advertisers is bullshit on several counts!


 

#20) CCT Times Management's position clearly remains that I was a simply a lazy, incapable, malcontent employee. That they were honest and supportive in this venture from negotiations until they walked me out the front door of the company. And that it was simply didn't like the results, that I want another bite at the apple. So I think it's important to consider the perspectives of those Cape Cod Times coworkers who actually spent their days working with me:

I could go on and on, having only touched the surface of this matter. Each of their depositions are so easily shown to be factually wrong on so many counts. There are just more contradictions than they could ever hope to explain away. I can take the facts of a single year, 2006, and show a series of events and facts that would leave any judge or jury scratching their heads at the fraudulent actions of this company.

#21) Below is an email I had to send to Peter Meyer in 2006 as I was out sick from his corporation because of the actions of he and his company...


Standards of Business Conduct - News Corporation: Promptly raise any concerns about any actual or potential violations of policies with the appropriate people within the Company. People are often reluctant to expose the wrong-doing or potential wrong-doing of others, due to loyalty, fear, or other reasons. It is understandable that no one wants to be the one who “tells.” But we owe a duty to the Company, our stockholders, and our colleagues to make sure that our businesses are conducted in accordance with the highest ethical standards. If we fail or delay to address a concern, matters may become worse, including for the wrong-doer.

*THIS POINT ADDED AFTER VIDEO COMPLETED: FOR APPEAL PURPOSES -

Heck, I don't claim to be perfect. Shit, I don't even aspire to be perfect. But I lived this. It could be anguishing fixing a problem for what was now their client at 1am, and again at it at 6 am. But that is what it was.

The Court's Summary Judgment Decision starts with "FACTUAL BACKGROUND". This perspective on the situation at the time appears to suggest a scenerio where I was repeatedly contacting Cape Cod Times to make a deal, and they were putting me off. I would attempt to counter the impression that Plaintiff was chasing and was being put off by CCT, as not wholey accurate. Emails show communications between Plaintiff and defendant in October 2011,where

To the contrary, Plaintiff was exploring multiple opportuinites that would allow him to maximize his successful business. The record will show, and DOES show, that it was I, the plaintiff, who insisted the deal be based on a Revenue Share basis.

*The record shows I refused an offer made by Cape Cod Times on March 12, 2002 and another CCT offer on March 20, 2002
*The record shows that on April 20, 2002 (See Item #12) I informed CCT that I had another offer, $100,000 yr + - just to lease my domains.

What Plaintiff didn't bargain for was that the management of this respected local media giant would go to the extremes they did in order to acquire my small business for a fraction of it's value. Shame on me, I knew to be wary of dishonesty due to the greed of individuals, I guess I just didn't think THAT MY LOCAL NEWSPAPER, a company doing 20+ million a year would go to such extents to save a few bucks for A company.

But then again, who would have thought their 50 billion dollar parent company would be so quick to turn a blind eye?

Does this sound like I was desperate to make a deal?

Or This?

So any suggestion by CCT that I was somehow out there looking to be rescued, and should be appreciative that Cape Cod Times was there and willing to steal my business by inducing me with 7 months of half truths, hidden estimates and trick answers, is false. And rather insulting.

Additionally, The Court:
"On October 12, 2001. Plaintiff again contacted CCT regarding a potential business venture"
HOWEVER AS SHOWN BELOW USING THE REAL TIME WORDS OF THE PARTIES, On October 12 2001, Cape Cod Times was thanking ME for MY patience with THEM.

Therefore, the FACADE that "Plaintiff again" contacted CCT, intended as meants to fool the court by suggesting Plaintiff was desperate, and Defendant some saving grace, is Absurd!

FACTUALLY SPEAKING IN A FRAUDULENT SENSE, The Cape Cod Times would allow the Court to erroneously rely upon - to it's detrement- that on October 12th I again contacted CCT out of nowhere. Yet the Reply To Me by Cape Cod Times shows - IN FACT, the opposite to be true.

Since the court ruled against me in summary judgement in May 2012, and after a 5 year legal battle, I was forced to take on this matter myself. This presentation doesn't even touch on some of the difficult issues that took place during my dealings with the Cape Cod Times:

*I could detail situations where collection notices were sent to advertisers for ads they never ordered, and those Realtors thought I was responsible and never talked to me again. I have the emails where I explain the fix to management - confirm before you send to legal! Something that effects the advertiser's life, effects my life, yet

*The CC Times was sending out tens of thousands of MLS emails a day, for years, on behalf of the Realtors, where the recipients of those emails were threatening legal action against the Realtor. Each one was a potential $13,000 fine under the Canned Spam Act. The Times would tell me it was just a "perceived customer complaint". I made a page on my "TermsOfUse.com" domain to help CCT with this. You'll hear about that domain name again in the "retaliation" section.

*Subject to error and omissions.

Thank You, Robert Fontaine!
FontaineVCCT@CapeCodEmail.com
www.FontainesDomains.com