“a decision produced by fraud on the court is not in essence a decision at all and never becomes final”
While negotiating the 2002 sale of my Internet business, under the guise of an agreement to Share revenue, my local newspaper was hiding a plan to Steal my revenue. By 2012, with prostate cancer and no longer able to afford legal help to fight this huge corporation, I was left to appeal the case pro se. It wasn’t a choice.
*ON JUNE 14, 2011, CCT CONCEDED THEIR FOR THE 1ST TIME, THEIR OTHERWISE UNDISCLOSED
2002 PLAN TO BUNDLE PRODUCTS DURING OUR DEAL.
*ON FEBRUARY 1, 2011 MEMO IN SUPPORT
OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CCT HAD UNEQUIVOCALLY ASSERTED CCT DIDN’T EVEN CONCEIVE OF BUNDLES
UNTIL 2003.
*SO I HAVE A SMOKING GUN AND ADMISSION BY CCT OF THEIR 2002 BUNDLE PLAN.
CCT PRESENTED EVIDENCE THEY 1ST CONCEIVED OF BUNDLES IN EARLY 2003.
*CCT SPENT THE
NEXT 5 YEARS OF LITIGATION SWEARING THEY CAN’T BE GUILTY OF HIDING 2002 BUNDLES,
THEY DIDN’T THINK OF EM UNTIL 2003, AND WON.
*THEY HAD ALREADY ADMITTED A PLAN TO
BUNDLE FOR THE ENTIRE DEAL, 2002-
SO I TRY TO VINDICATE MY NAME AS THESE POWERFUL ENTITIES CONVINCED THE COURT I WAS
LYING TO IT. LOOK AT THE FACTS -
MASSACHUSETTS SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED! I PUT FORTH CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT CCT WAS HIDING A PLAN IN 2002 TO BUNDLE AND DIVERT 90% TO ANOTHER POCKET. CCT WAS FORCED TO ADMIT THAT IN SOF REPLY #52 (Below). THE COURT MAY BE A WILLING VICTIM OF CCT’S FRAUD AND OBSTRUCTION, I AM NOT!
CCT SET ME UP! SPECIFICALLY, WHILE NEGOTIATING THE OCT 31, 2002 PURCHASE OF MY INTERNET ADVERTISING BUSINESS, ON A REVENUE SHARE BASIS, CCT WAS HIDING A DELIBERATE PLAN TO “BUNDLE” MY WEB ADS WITH PRINT ADS FROM THEIR FAILING RE HANDOUT. CCT WAS ALSO HIDING A “POLICY” THAT MEANT 90% OF BUNDLE REVENUE IS ALLOCATED TO THEIR PRINT DEPARTMENT, NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN MY SALE PRICE. MY NEW PARTNERS PLOTTING TO DEFRAUD ME!
THE FACTUAL RECORD IS FULLY ESTABLISHED, CCT CLEARLY HIDING A PLAN DURING OUR 2002 NEGOTIATIONS TO “BUNDLE” PRODUCTS DURING THE REVENUE SHARE PERIOD, USED TO DETERMINE THE PRICE THEY WOULD PAY FOR MY BUSINESS. THEY ADMITTED IT UNDER OATH, UNTIL THEY DENIED IT UNDER OATH!
THE JAN 9 2003 “MEMO” WHICH CCT ASSERTS, AND THE COURT HAS WHOLLY ACCEPTED, AS TO
BEING WHEN CCT 1ST CONCEIVED OF BUNDLES, IS A COMPLETE SHAM. IT WAS AN ACT TO TRICK
ME. CCT ADMITS 2002 BUNDLES -
2015, with advanced melanoma, all my appeals lost, completely insignificant to the court, I try and create a record that will ultimately enable justice to prevail. Barnstable & Appeal Decisions ERRONEOUSLY conclude Bundles began in 2003, JUST AS CCT FALSELY ASSERTED, AND THE LAWYERS IMPROPERLY SUBSTANTIATED.
NOBODY MAKES THIS DEAL if they know their new partners plan to be their biggest competitor! The difference in sale price could exceed 1 million dollars had CCT tried. CCT LAWYERS DESERVE CREDIT. The 1st firm had a retired local judge, the 2nd involved in Facebook litigation. Officers of The Courts calling me a liar.
CCT IS CAUGHT MANIPULATING THE DEAL SO THEY COMPLETELY CONTROLLED THE CONSIDERATION! THEY ARE BLATANTLY LYING TO THE COURT. IT IS ABSOLUTELY ABSURD THAT THE COURTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS WOULD ALLOW THIS LEVEL OF LITIGATION MISCONDUCT TO EXIST!
IMPORTANTLY, A FALSE PREMISE PERMEATES THIS ENTIRE DISPUTE. CCT CONVINCED THE COURT
THEY HAD A RIGHT TO ACCOUNT FOR COSTS, SO IT DIDN’T MATTER IF CCT HAD A 2002 BUNDLE
PLAN. BUT CCT STOLE THAT RIGHT, SECRETLY RE-
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? THEY COMPLETELY MANIPULATED THE FINAL OUTCOME -
I HAVE THEM ADMITTING TO THE 2002 BUNDLE PLAN THEY HAD OBVIOUSLY AND UNETHICALLY WITHHELD FROM ME, SO THEY COULD PUT 90% OF THE MONEY IN ANOTHER POCKET. SO HOW DID CAPE COD TIMES AND THEIR LAWYERS FILE AFFIDAVITS CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ASSERTION?
“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”. At a minimum it would establish that the admitted 2002 plan was fraudulently concealed. Seriously.
B BARNSTABLE COURT AGREES WITH CCT THAT BUNDLES WERE CONCEIVED IN JAN 2003, AS STATED
IN IT’S SUMMARY JUDGEMENT DECISION ON MAY 2, 2012. RULING CCT DID NOT “PROPOSE”,
“IMPLEMENT”, “CONTEMPLATE” BUNDLES UNTIL JAN 9, 2003.
CAPE COD TIMES HAD SUCCESSFULLY CONVINCED THE COURT THAT IT WAS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE:
“THUS, CCT COULD NOT HAVE MISREPRESENTED TO PLAINTIFF AN ADVERTISING PROGRAM THAT DID NOT EXISTS DURING THE 2002 NEGOTIATIONS”
THE BARNSTABLE RULING IS VIEWED THROUGH THE LENS THAT CCT HAS CREATED FOR IT, EFFECTIVELY RENDERING MY OTHER POINTS MOOT TO THE COURT. MY CREDIBILITY KICKED TO THE ROAD. CCT’S COULDN’T HAVE WRITTEN A BETTER, MORE THOROUGH DECISION IF IT TRIED. THE BARNSTABLE DECISION:
pg2. "In January 2003, Kempf sent the following email to certain CCT staff, on which
he copied plaintiff" -
pg3. “In his affidavit, Meyer states that such product bundling began in early 2003"
pg5. ”Indeed, contrary to plaintiff's 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. "Second, 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”.
“Plaintiff has not offered evidence that the topics allegedly misrepresented to him were even contemplated by CCT”. WOW!
BOTTOM LINE: THE BARNSTABLE COURT CLEARLY DOES NOT RECOGNIZE CCT’S 2002 BUNDLE PLAN!
THE COURT RULES THAT CCT HAD NOT EVEN CONTEMPLATED BUNDLES UNTIL EARLY 2003, AFTER
THE P&S. *And when you see CCT’s 2002-
C. MASS COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) AGREED WITH CCT’S THAT “BUNDLES BEGAN” AFTER THE
SALE, IN 2003,
AND AFFIRMED THE BARNSTABLE (Ruling) ON DEC 23, 2013.
“After the agreement was executed, CCTimes began to sell Internet advertising in a “bundle”, with print advertising…”
REALLY? ON THE TOP OF MY REPLY BRIEF I HAD PLACED THE DOCUMENT SHOWING CCT COUNTING
2002 “REAL ESTATE BUNDLE” REVENUE!
BOTTOM LINE: THE APPEAL COURT CLEARLY FELT CCT
HAD NOT EVEN CONTEMPLATED BUNDLES UNTIL EARLY 2003, AFTER THE P&S.
THE APPEALS COURT EXPERIENCE IS AS DISTURBING AS BARNSTABLE. I HAVE NO VOICE:
I placed the “Smoking Gun” ATOP my Appellant Reply Brief, CCT’S pre-
IN A REMARKABLE DEFENSE, CCT’s Appellee Brief 3/15/2013 argued that the document did not say what I claimed: “The Real Estate Merger Analysis makes no reference to any bundled products” ,"It has nothing to do with bundled products". THE COURT ACCEPTED THAT RIDICULOUS ANSWER.
IN A DECISION THAT MIRRORS CCT’S ABSURD ASSERTIONS, On 12/23/13 the Appeals Court
AGREED “After the agreement was executed, CCTimes began to sell Internet advertising
in a “bundle,”. EVEN THOUGH I had the actual photo of CCT’s 2002-
Once CCT was able to steal Summary Judgment, Barnstable Court FALLING for CCT’S 2003 Bundle Defense, (ignoring Mass Rule 56e) and asserting personal knowledge of 2003 Bundles, I was doomed. No lawyer would touch this case, no court will listen to my reasoning. The local company president and counsel, v me.
BELIEVING CCT’S FALSE 2003 TALE, THE COURT WAS UNABLE TO APPRECIATE OTHER ARGUMENTS
I MADE THAT WOULD HAVE APPEARED LOGICAL, BUT ONLY WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND CCT DID INDEED
HVE THAT 2002-
The Court concludes that the July 18, 2002 discussion it mentions below proves that when I questioned CCT about pricing issues between
Print products and Internet product, this showed that I was aware early on that CCT might attempt to Bundle.
THE Footnote 3: “The plaintiff's focus on when CCTimes conceived of the bundling idea and his insistence that CCTimes knew of and failed to tell him of its plan to bundle services is misplaced. In a July 18, 2002, letter from the plaintiff to CCTimes, he specifically questions how commissions on customers opting for both online and print advertising would be credited, indicating that if CCTimes "sells them 'print' and 'gives' them internet, I would never have much chance to earn a commission or count that money towards the sale price, which would in turn defeat my ability to make money from helping you build a rental portal. . . . I will need some clarification on this." Thus relatively early in negotiations, the plaintiff was aware that bundle sales were a possibility. Negotiations proceeded after this letter but the record does not reflect, and the plaintiff does not contend, that CCTimes ever promised or made any assurances that it would not combine sales or "give" Internet advertising or other services at a reduced rate. CCTimes cannot be faulted for the plaintiff's decision to sign the agreement without any protective provisions in this regard.”.
*THIS REALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN VIEWED BY THE COURT AS EVIDENCE OF CCT’S DECEIT IN
NOT DISCLOSING THE 2002 BUNDLE PLAN, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU SEE “F” BELOW, AND HOW THEY
ALTERED THE WORDING OF THE ALTERED P&S. Instead the court suggest I should have
been forewarned.
BOTH the Barnstable and the Appeals Court Decisions ARE WHOLLY PREMISED ON THE BELIEF THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD PROVES CCT DIDN’T EVEN THINK OF BUNDLES UNTIL 2003. The Court viewed this exchange as a failure of me to make sure the contract didn’t allow CCT to bundle. A Failure of ME to protect myself from this eventuality.
CCT COUNSEL HAS NOT BEEN SHY ABOUT VOUCHING FOR THE FACT THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE PROVES
2003 BUNDLES, AS MY PENDING (A/O 01/20/15) OPPOSITION TO CCT’S MOTION SEEKING PROTECTION
EXPLAINS -
CCT LAWYERS INSIST: “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”. (CCT 9/18/14, 7/7/14, 5/22/14, 4/8/13, 3/15/13, 2/1/11).”CONCEIVED OF THE STRATEGY IN 2003” IS A VERY BIG LIE!
D: THE TRUTH? DID CCT HAVE A 90/10 BUNDLE PLAN IN PLACE IN 2002 AS I CLAIM, OR DID THEY INNOCENTLY THINK UP BUNDLES IN EARLY 2003, AS THEY CLAIM AND THE COURT HAS SO RULED?
*D CONSISTS OF 6 UNIQUE ARTICLES OF EVIDENCE THAT ESTABLISH CCT HAD BUNDLES IN 2002.
ALL CAPE COD TIMES MANAGER DEPOSITIONS ADMIT BUNDLES BEGAN BEFORE 2003:
1 * CCT’s Internet Business Development Manager Bob Kempf ADMITS Bundles were in place in 2002. 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.
2 * CCT’s Advertising Manager Molly Evans ADMITS Bundles were in place in 2002, 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.
3. CAPE COD TIMES PRE-
THIS DOCUMENT SHOWS THAT CCT HAS THE ENTIRE DEAL ALREADY PRICED OUT, INCLUDING “REAL
ESTATE BOOK BUNDLES” FROM 2002-
*THIS PROJECTION WHICH CCT RELIED ON THE PRICING EMPLOYED THE 90%/10% ALLOCATION OF BUNDLE REVENUE TO THE PRINT DEPARTMENT, AWAY FROM MY SALES PRICE. THEY EXPECT TO DO ONLY $1,300,000 DURING THE DEAL.
**The January 9, 2003 “Memo” that CCT has allowed the Courts to rely on as when Bundles began, is completely fictitious. It was used initially to defraud me, and has been used in litigation to defraud the court.
***CCT has boasted repeatedly how bundles were never addressed prior to the P&S. Interesting then, that they had this plan in their back pocket. And did not disclose it. Also, when one REALIZES that CCT HAD 2002 BUNDLES HIDDEN FOR THIS ENTIRE DEAL, we can understand OTHER unethical moves on their part, that look benign when you believe their 2003 story! CCT was the only party capable of addressing “bundles” in the P&S, because they were the only ones who knew of them and this plan.
This hidden 2002 plan that employs a similarly unmentioned 90%/10% “bundle policy”, for the entire Net Revenue Share term, is PRECISELY THE FRAUD I AM COMPLAINING ABOUT. COUNSEL, By attesting as you have repeatedly done, and continue to stand on, that CCT thought up bundles in CCT 2003, YOU HAVE ALLOWED 4 JUDGES TO RULE INCORRECTLY. The Smoking Gun “Real Estate Merger Analysis”:
*Notably, CCT won on appeal by stating in their Appeal Brief : “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”. NO QUALMS WITH SHOVING THE LIE RIGHT DOWN THE COURT’S FACE.
This tells me that CCT Counsel didn’t realize there was evidence proving their 2002 bundle plan when they filed their brief by 3/15/13 (Really?).
This ALSO tells me that even AFTER they realized the Smoking Gun has caught CCT with
the 2002-
4. IN STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACT RESPONSE #52, CCT ADMITS THIS DOCUMENT SHOWS CCT
EXPECTED 2002 BUNDLE REVENUES FOR THE 2002-
WHEN CONFRONTED BY FONTAINE ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT PROVING 2002 BUNDLES, ON JUNE 14, 2011, A CCT ATTORNEY from Nutter signed the Following Statement Of Facts:
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-
CCT'S Reply 52 on June 14, 2011 "CCT does not dispute Plaintiff's Response 52".
THAT ANSWER, OF JUNE 14 2011, ADMITTING THE 2002 BUNDLE PLAN, IS AN ADMISSION THAT
CAPE COD TIME’S FEBRUARY 1, 2011 “MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT MOTION”
-
THAT ANSWER ESTABLISHES THAT CCT HAS DECEIVED THE COURT DURING THE PAST 7 YEARS OF LITIGATION.
THAT ANSWER BRINGS INTO QUESTION THE COURT’S RELIANCE RELIANCE ON PRESIDENT PETER MEYER’S AFFIDAVIT, WHEN IT RULED “In his affidavit, Meyer states that such product bundling began in early 2003"
(CCT somehow had a 90%/10% Bundle allocation policy in place BEFORE THE SALE, even though they are adamant that they didn’t even conceive of bundles until AFTER the sale!)
SIX MONTHS EARLIER, ON FEBRUARY 1, 2011 (As shown in #1 above) a Nutter lawyer went on a diatribe against Bob Fontaine, by telling the Court, for example, that “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". NOBODY MAKES THIS DEAL IF THEY KNOW THEY KNEW WHAT CCT WAS PLOTTING!
HOW DO EXPERIENCED COMMERCIAL LAWYERS SIGN AFFIDAVITS IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MEMORANDUM, ASSERTING OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT CCT HAD NOT EVEN “CONCEIVED” OF A BUNDLING STRATEGY, UNTIL JANUARY 2003? IT SEEMS TO ME THE LAWYERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRIPPING OVER EACH OTHER TO GET TO THE JUDGE TO EXPLAIN THEIR MISTAKE?
5. CCT CANNOT HIDE FROM INTERNET ARCHIVE.ORG DOCUMENTING THEIR COMBO ADS IN 2002,
NOT JAN 2003!
As I noted in my filings, the courts have ruled that Archive.org can
be used, and as independent source, to establish the veracity of evidence contained
within it’s pages, it is deemed to be accurate.
IN JULY-
“In 2002 the online revenue for the Real Estate book was 11.4% of total revenue”
????? AND THERY CONCEIVED OF BUNDLES IN JANUARY 2003?
Print giving Internet a token
% for 2002 Bundle for a Strategy CCT and the Lawyers have REPEATEDLY SWORN they conceived
of in 2003?
In this September 9, 2003 email -
Kempf tells the other Print Managers that Internet Department’s 2002 11.4% share from Bundles has been running at 15% in 2003, and this was due to the increase in the Bundles’s value proposition. Meaning they now owned MY vibrant websites, with 1,000,000 yearly visitors, which they didn’t in 2002. So Internet should get a little more.
CCT ENTIRE DEFENSE IS THEY HATCHED BUNDLES AFTER THE SALE, IN 2003. SO I HAVE IDENTIFIED 6 DIFFERENT SOURCES THAT ESTABLISH BUNDLES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONCEIVED AFTER THE SALE, ON JANUARY 9, 2003!
EACH of those sources belongs to CCT, available to CCT, as they asserted under oath that bundles began in 03.
*WHY DIDN’T CCT FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES EVEN MENTION THE 2002 BUNDLE REVENUE THEY EXPECTED?
*WHY
DIDN’T CCT ACCOUNT FOR THOSE REVENUES WHEN PAYING FONTAINE HIS 2002 REVENUE SHARE?
*WHY
DIDN’T CCT GIVE ME THE REAL PROJECTION OF $1.3 MILLION, GIVING A $4.3 “PROJECTION”
INSTEAD?
*WHEN ALL EVIDENCE PROVED THE 2002 BUNDLE PLAN, HOW DID MEYER’S AFFIDAVIT
CLAIM THEY BEGAN IN 2003?
*WHY DID CCT COUNSEL CONTINUE TO SWEAR “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”?
it’s unfortunate for the non represented, non corporate and non wealthy litigant like myself, when the Court allows these people to make sworn statements such as CCT HAS MADE "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”
CONCLUSION -
THE SCAM BY CAPE COD TIMES WAS DEEP, CALCULATING AND METHODICAL:
E. THE $100,000 DEDUCTIBLE SCAM. Right from the start CCT convinced me that they themselves were doing $100,000 in applicable Internet Real Estate revenues by and in year 2002, and they were shooting for $150,000 in 2003. This allowed them to convince me to allow a $100,000 “deductible” each year of the deal, before my 20% would be counted. AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE AND AS FONTAINE EXHIBIT #16, CCT GAVE ME WITH BOTH OFFERS PROJECTIONS UP TO $4,310,000, HIDING THE REAL ONE THEY RELIED ON.
Come to find out they had made this all up. While eventually claiming to do $75,000
in year 2002, the fact is THE ONLY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED BY CCT WHO SOLD A PENNEY OF
APPLICABLE NRS REVENUE, OUTSIDE OF THE BUNDLE SCAM DIVERTING 90% TO PRINT, WAS ME.
CCT manipulated words and records so that the P&S would allow a $100,000 yearly “OFF-
AND THEN THEY NEVER CONTRIBUTED A PENNY DURING THE ENTIRE DEAL. FONTAINE EXHIBIT #16, CCT OWN RECAP OF WAGES AND REVENUES, SHOWS THIS TO BE TRUE. IT WAS A $500,000 MANIPULATION FROM THE START. My Movie & Detail Page Details with specificity how CCT employed this $100,000 portion of the scam. Here is a taste of their deceptive representations:
KEY POINT! NOW WE KNOW WHY CCT WAS FIGHTING SO HARD TO RETAIN THE “Expenses” and “But Not Limited To” LANGUAGE!
*CCT’s 1st P&S Draft had an Aug 2002 Closing, so CCT clearly had no intention of disclosing or mentioning bundles prior to the sale, in Oct 2002.
THIS EMAIL EXCHANGE, FONTAINE EXHIBIT #13, BEGS THE QUESTION: HOW THIS HAPPENED IF EVERYONE WAS ACTING IN GOOD FAITH? BUT MORE TO THE POINT, HOW DID NONE OF THEM ACT IN GOOD FAITH? (I Have Created This Desigated Page to Detail the October 16 Fraud).
CCT WAS WELL AWARE OF THEIR 2002 REAL ESTATE BOOK BUNDLE ON OCTOBER 16, 2002, CCT’S INTERNET DEPARTMENT’S EXPECTS $7,300 FOR YEAR 2002 FROM THIS BUNDLE. SO WHAT WAS THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN MANAGEMENT WHEN THEY OPTED TO CONCEDE THIS TERM THAT ONLY THEY KNEW WAS WOULD BE MATERIAL? DID THEY AGREE TO SNEAK IT BACK IN? DID THEY CONSIDER INFORMING ME ABOUT 2002 BUNDLES, ABOUT 90/10?
“BUNDLES” was the sole issue effected by this language over the entire 4.5 years, And only CCT could have prevented it . PUT THEM UNDER OATH! CCT was hiding Bundles during this Oct 16 exchange, the attached P&S is silent with regard to Bundles because of CCT. Designed ambiguity. Which combined with their other fraudulent moves, make the Court think it is I who failed to prevent this in the agreements. BUT I HAD, CCT STOLE IT BACK!
The “attached Revision” CCT sends me on Oct 16, 2002 on Left. To Right The Signed P&S (Fontaine Exh #14) with the terms added, signed 10/31/2002.
NOTICE! When you remove the term “But Not Limited To” from THIS language in the P&S, you are left with CCT being able to SPECIFICALLY DEDUCT ONLY “ 1. Bad Debts. 2. Credits. 3. Discounts. 4. Excluded Revenue. ONLY AFTER I FILE SUIT do I realize they had secreted the term BACK into the P&S!
AMBIGUITY IN THE P&S REGARDING BUNDLES? YOU CAN THANK CCT! It all sounds so reasonable to the Court that CCT can account for bundle costs.
Manager Evans, tells us that she, Manager Kempf and President Meyer had “poured over
and poured over” the projections -
SEE WHAT CCT DID? THEY BRAZENLY RE-
THIS “BUT NOT LIMITED TO” PAGE PROVIDES FULL DETAILS AND SPECIFICS OF THIS KEY PORTION OF CCT’S SCHEME!
SO CAPE COD TIMES KEEPS TELLING THE COURT: “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). ALL THE EVIDENCE PROVES THE 2002 BUNDLES, NONE 2003!
HOW THE SCAM WORKED: WITH ALTERED P&S IN HAND, CCT WAS ABLE TO ARGUE THAT NOTHING IN THE P&S PROHIBITED THEM FROM BUNDLING.
AS CCT’S 2015 Opposition to My Motion for Reconsideration from the Barnstable Court TRIED TO PAINT IT (P3):
“Judge Nickerson concluded that Fontaine’s fraudulent Inducement Claim was fundamentally flawed because “nothing in the P&S prohibited [the CCTimes] from ‘bundling’ products specifically, or changing its advertising more broadly”.
JUST AS CCT HAD MANIPULATED IT TO WORK! IF CCT HAD NOT ALTERED THE P&S, AND BOTH
‘EXPENSES” AND “BUT NOT LIMITED TO” REMAINED DELETED FROM THE P&S -
HENCE THE ART OF DECEPTION! THEY HID 2002 BUNDLES, THEY HID THE 90/10 ALLOCATION POLICY, AND THEY ALTERED THE P&S. I WOULDN’T HAVE SOLD TO THEM IF THEY ANSWER HONESTLY ABOUT WHAT EFFECTS THE NET! IN SPITE OF THE ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE BARNSTABLE COURT INTO RULING ON MAY 2, 2012: ”CCT could not have misrepresented to Plaintiff, an advertising program that did not exist during the 2002 negotiations”.
JUST THE FALSE CONCLUSION CCT NEEDED TO MAKE THE REST OF MY CLAIMS SOUND BASELESS.
INTERESTINGLY, the Barnstable Ruling said “In his affidavit, Meyer states that such product bundling began in early 2003"
BUT CCT President Peter Meyer DID NOT KNOW when bundles were conceived. Aug 23, 2010 (F9 Meyer Depo p55/56):
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...."
His Internet and Ad Manager had already said “yes” bundles were in place by 2002. BUT MEYER DIDN’T KNOW.
SO CCT WENT AND LOOKED IT UP, AND 6 MO LATER ON FEB 1, 2011 SIGNED MEMO SUPPORTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, SWEARING THAT BUNDLES BEGAN IN EARLY JANUARY 2003. MEYER WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO DIDN’T KNOW, BUT HIS AFFIDAVIT IS QUOTED BY THE COURT CONFIRMING BUNDLES BEGAN IN EARLY 2003. THEY DIDN’T. CCT ACTUALLY USED EVIDENCE THEY INITIALLY PLANTED TO DECEIVE ME, TO DECEIVE THE COURT.
The level of collusion and conspiracy for CCT used in suggesting this “Proposal” is sickening!
G. Jan 9 2003. CCT INTENTIONALLY PRE-
[JANUARY
9 2003 MEMO AND FRAUD January 9, 2003 DETAILED].
CCT’S UNEQUIVOCAL ASSERTION THAT THEY FIRST CONCEIVED OF A REAL ESTATE BUNDLE ADVERTISING
STRATEGY, IN THE CONTEXT OF PURCHASING MY INTERNET ADVERTING BUSINESS, IN EARLY JANUARY,
2003 -
Let the record show the following entities are under oath backing January 9, 2003
as the date that CCT hatched a bundling strategy: CAPE COD TIMES (while owned by
Ottaway Newspaper, and then Dow Jones -
CONSIDER HOW CALCULATED THEIR MOVES! Cape Cod Times combined their Hidden Bundle Plan, with their secret 90/10 allocation claim, mixed in a completely fictitious January 9, 2003 Memo to try convince new partner and employee Fontaine that they had just conceived of Bundles, and in order to deceive the Court when Fontaine got understandably pissed off at this wholly unethical and unfair business practice, they switched the P&S before closing to reinsert “But Not Limited to”, GIVING THEM THE VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED (and quite logical to the court) RIGHT TO ACCOUNT FOR PRINT COSTS.
IT MAKES YOU WONDER HOW IT IS THAT PETER MEYER WAS UNABLE TO SAY WHEN BUNDLES BEGAN IN JULY, BUT CCT
Meyer Deposition Aug 23, 2010 (F9 Meyer Depo p55/56).
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...."
6 month later CCT made Fontaine out to be a lair, in Memo for SJ NOW CERTAIN THAT
BUNDLES BEGAN -
H. NOTICE: CCT PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO PREPARING FAKE PROJECTIONS!
It is rather Curious, how Evans, Kempf and Meyer put all this effort into the “three” scenarios, BUT SOMEHOW they all forgot the FOUTH and ONLY ACCURATE one “Real Estate Merger Analysis”, only to swear to the court that is because bundles were hatched in 2003.
CCT Ad Manager Evans’s Deposition of August 2010, in my Appeal Brief:
“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. “
EVAN’S DEPO GOES ON TO SAY THEY WANTED TO BE AS ACCURATE AS THEY COULD. GIVE OR TAKE 3 MILLION DOLLARS I GUESS.
It kind of makes you wonder how CCT President Meyer didn’t know which year bundles began in his deposition, but in his affidavits he cleams early 2003. When we KNOW that isn’t accurate!
It sounds as if they placed considerable effort into making these projection. The problem is, as I describe in my filings, this work was used to create the FAKE projections used to induce ME into selling. They had already prepared a REAL projection, “Real Estate Merger Analysis PRIOR to making the offers to me with the fake projections.
THESE PEOPLE “MESSAGED AND MESSAGED AND POURED OVER AND POURED OVER” THEIR FRAUDULENT PROJECTIONS SO MUCH, THAT THE REAL PROJECTIONS AND FAKE ONES DIFFER BY THREE MILLION DOLLARS! At 10% sale commission and 20% NRS, THAT is a million dollar lie directly effecting the price of my business, of which CCT had already stolen control of consideration.
HOW DID MEYER IN HIS CAPACITY AS CORPORATE REP IN THIS LAWSUIT, FORGET THE 2002 BUNDLES?
IN HIS AUGUST DEPOSITION, ONLY TO ALLOW THE COMPANY TO COME BACK SIX MONTHS LATER
AND POINT TO THE JANUARY 9, 2003 -
THESE ARE FAKE NUMBERS THEY 3 EXECUTIVES WERE “MESSAGING,” TO INDUCE ME… WHILE, ON
THE OTHER HAND, THEY WERE RELYING ON THE ONE THAT WOULD COUNT BUNDLES 2002-
THIS IS A $3,000,000 LIE BY CCT MANAGEMENT. NOTICE NONE OF THE 3 IS THE SAME AS “RE MERGER” WHICH THEY RELIED UPON!
HERE IS THE ACTUAL LINK: http://web.archive.org/web/20020812124634/www.capecoddirectories.com/ capeathome/marketing.htm
SO consider again what the Nutter Law Firm swore to 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”"
Consider again what the Howland & Knight Law Firm swore 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”.
6. SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 EMAIL I TRACKED DOWN, CCT TOP MANAGERS DISCUSS WITH SPECIFICITY OF THE 2002 BUNDLE PLAN AND SPLIT.
FOR CCTIMES TO PREVAIL IN THIS MATTER BE CLAIMING THEY THOUGHT UP BUNDLES IN 2003, IS A FARCE!
A. CCT IS ON RECORD STATING THAT BUNDLES WEREN’T HATCHED UNTIL 2003.
“An attorney owes his first duty to the court. He assumed his obligation toward it before he ever had a client.”
CCT HAS SWORN FOR 7 YEARS THAT THEY COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED THIS CRIME IN 2002, BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T EVEN “CONCEIVE”, “INTRODUCE”, ”PLAN”, HATCHED”, “DEVELOP”, “BEGAN” a “Bundle Strategy” UNTIL “AFTER” the 2002 sale, in “early 2003”.
ON FEBRUARY 1ST 2011, An Attorney for CCT SIGNED A MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, Filed in Barnstable Superior Court. This document was subject
to Mass Rule 56e, WHICH REQUIRES THAT “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”.
THOSE WHO PRESENTED THAT MEMORANDUM TO THE COURT, HAVE
COMMITTED PERJURY.
CCT WAS quite unequivocal that Bundles began in 2003 in it’s February 1, 2011 Memo in Support of Summary Judgment:
*"In January, 2003, AFTER the contract had been executed, CCT developed a marketing concept which was a combination real estate advertising product". (A10).
*"Second, 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"(A13).
* "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."(A13).
CCT ALSO continued the facade of 2003 bundles in their other filings (The identifying after each per my Appeal Brief Appendix):
* "..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. This "bundling" was only a small component." (Meyer Affidavit JA B7).
BOTTOM LINE: CCT INSISTS UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THE THEY DIDN’T EVEN “CONCEIVE”, “INTRODUCE”, ”PLAN”, “HATCHED”, “DEVELOP”, “BEGAN” A BUNDLE STRATEGY UNTIL JANUARY 9, 2003, AFTER THE 02 SALE.
A. Barnstable 5/2/12 SJ Ruling: fontainesdomains.com/CCT8/summary.html
B. My Appeal
Brief:fontainesdomains.com/DMM//Brief.html
C. My Mass SJC Court Motion for Further
Appellate Review. (SJC Docket)
D. Rule 60b Motion 2nd: fontainesdomains.com/DMM/page16.html
E. Rule 60b Motion 1st: ontainesdomains.com/DMM/page15.html
F. My Affidavit Rule 60b Motion: ontainesdomains.com/DMM/rule60facts.html
G. My Opp to CCT Protective Order: fontainesdomains.com/DMM/
H. Rule 56(e) ignored
by CCT: fontainesdomains.com/DMM/rule56rule60.html
I. This Video of 2 yrs ago DETAILS
& DOCUMENTS, DOC BY DOC…!!
Fontaine Exhibits .pdf Including signed Signed P&S (Exh #14).
J. Appeals Court Ruling: fontainesdomains.com/DMM/rule28decision.html
K. My Reply
Brief: fontainesdomains.com/DMM/AppellantReplyBrief.html
L. My Appeals Court Petition
For ReHearing.
M. Proof of 2002 Bundles: fontainesdomains.com/DMM/proofx6.html
M. January, 9, 2003 IS FRAUD fontainesdomains.com/DMM/january9.html
O. CCT Altered the P&S. fontainesdomains.com/DMM/butnotlimitedto.html
P. Appeals Docket:
www.ma-
R.
My WhistleBlower Complaint V CCT, Giving false projections to advertisers.
R2. The
C21 Fraud. The Retaliation against me by CCT for being Hospitalized.
KEY LINKS TO TOOLS AND EVIDENCE SHOWING CCT’S FRAUDULENT SCHEME AND FRAUD UPON THE COURTS:
I. HOW MUCH DID CAPE COD TIMES CONTRIBUTE TO THIS BUY-
CAPE COD TIMES own records show that I was personally responsible for over 100% of all revenue realized under the NRS 2002 through mid 2007. They had 2 DOZEN PROFESSIONAL SALESPEOPLE OUT SELLING REAL ESTATE BOOK BUNDLES IN DIRECT COMPETITION WITH ME, AND I DO 100% OF THE SALES. YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE AN IDIOT TO MAKE THIS DEAL, IF CAPE COD TIMES WAS BEING HONEST. THEY WEREN’T.
EVEN IF CCT WERE ABLE TO SUGGEST A 2ND EMPLOYEE OF ALTERNATE SOURCE WHERE REVENUES UNDER THE DEAL WERE EARNED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN BOB FONTAINE, THE NUMBERS WOULD BE MINUSCULE AT BEST!
J. CCT’s Claimed 90%/10% Bundle Policy favoring their Print Department is a Farce!
It was NOT the Policy CCT has allowed the Courts to believe!
1. As defined below and in my filings, EACH of those in CCT speaking of bundles gave a different answer as to the Bundle Allocation “Policy”. 6 different answers must have made for a difficult policy to adhere to? ASSHOLES!
2. By failing to disclose the “policy” or the word “bundles” until AFTER the sale, and then reinserting “but not limited to”, they were able to convince the Appeals Court that it was completely understandable that they would deduct such expenses:
“In addition, the plaintiff concedes that no provision prohibits CCTimes from bundling print and Internet advertising”
“In addition, the record does not demonstrate the the ninety percent/ten percent allocation of revenue from bundle sales did not reflect true value”
BUT IN TRUTH, CCT HAD SET ME UP ALTERED THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT -
*Imagine when they are asked to explain how ‘but not limited to” made it back into the P&S, COMPLETELY changing the deal?
If you think about it, CCT Managed to tell the court they had a 2002 Policy for a product they conceived of in 2003!
These are the various answers CCT has presented as to the legitimacy of the 90%/10% Bundle “Policy”:
K. CCT WAS SURE TO MISREPRESENT OUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE COURT FROM THE START!
At the
very start of the Courts May 2, 2012 Decision, The Court speaks as if I were repeatedly
contacting CCT, and they were disinterested. Meyer refers to my “Pursuit of a sale”,
and the Court mentions that CCT surely wasn’t about to change their policies for
this little subset of a business that I owned.
But CCT’s own projections showed that my business could do over $1,000,000+ per year.
In this NEW market and that they “were just starting out”.
REGARDLESS, IF FACTS MATTER,
IF TRUTH MATTERS, THEN OBVIOULSY THE COURT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT CCT HAD NOT IGNORE
ME, THEY WERE -
And while were talking about Cape Cod Time’s Arrogance and Hypocrisy, as they tell the Court they thought up bundles as a way to increase internet real estate revenue (by sending 90% of bundle revenues to Print Department) because of this claimed “policy”, when we know they expected only $52,000 to go to Internet from Bundles during a deal, YET they tell me they project u p to $4,300,000 (think of that!)@!!
POINT BEING, IT IS A STRETCH FOR CCT TO MAKE IT SEEM THAT THEY DID BUNDLES TO HELP
OUR DEAL.
WERE THAT THE CASE, CCT WOULD HAVE ACTED ETHICALLY AND LEGALLY, INSTEAD
OF HIDING THE BUNDLE SCHEME.
CCT’S ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.. I LINKS BELOW SHOW THAT BEFORE STEALING MY
DOMINANT WEB SITES, THEY BASICALLY GAVE THE INTERNET PORTION OF THE BUNDLE AWAY -
2000/2002 Promo for the RE Book Bundle -
2003/2004 Promo for the Rental Book Bundle -
CCT KNEW WHAT THE REALTORS KNEW WHAT I KNEW WHAT EVERYONE KNEW, THE VALUE WAS IN MY WEBSITES, NOT THEIR RAG!
THIS EMAIL IS SO DAMNING TO CCT IT IS SICK!
THINK ABOUT IT: 2 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE P&S and istead of informing me of the undles we now know only THEY knew existed, CCT AGREES INSTEAD TO REMOVE THE TERMS “EXPENSES” AND “BUT NOT LIMITED TO”.
SO THEY WERE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DEDUCT THEIR HIDDEN BOOK BUNDLES AFTER THIS CONCESSION.
SO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DID?
THEY SNUCK THE TERM BACK IN PRIOR TO CLOSING, 2 WEEKS LATER. THEY EVEN SUGGEST IN
APPEAL PAPERS THAT THIS EMAIL MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THE FINAL AGREEMENT ON THIS ISSUE.
REALLY?
AND FOR 7 FUCKING YEARS THEY have been arguing their right to deduct bundles,
WHICH IN TRUTH, THEY HAD CONCEDED.
Imagine the discussion among them, knowing they would agree to remove the term, instead of being honest and disclosing bundles, and knowing they would sneak the term BACK in the agreement. Wow!
F. OCTOBER 16, 2002 IS PERHAPS THE MOST BRAZEN AND CALCULATED ACT OF FRAUD AS THERE IS IN THIS CASE OF MANY. CCT SHOWED THEIR TRUE COLORS WHEN THEY AGREED TO REMOVE “BUT NOT LIMITED TO” AND THE WORD “EXPENSES”, EXACTLY 2 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE P&S, WHEN DEFINING LANGUAGE FOR THE P&S OF WHAT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DEDUCT AS EXPENSES OR COSTS, BEFORE CALCULATING MY 20%.
*It should be noted, with “expenses” and “But Not Limited To” removed from the contract, this really wasn’t “Net Revenue Share Agreement” (NRS) at all. This was a term CCT opted to use. Applicable revenues, if actually received CCT and not paid back to advertisers, would be 20%.
KEY INDICATOR OF FRAUD: With an August 2002 closing on the draft P&S, by August 9th CCT has me transfer the Administrative control over the domain name assets to them. I agree, but qualify that by stating I am ‘RELYING’ on their representation that they will do $100,000 on their own in 2002, as they have repeatedly represented to me they would do. BUT, as I noted below from my Reply brief, the 3 CCT executives discuss among themselves the fact that my assumption (which originated with them), was obviously wrong.
SO DO THEY DO THE RIGHT THING AND TELL ME TO STOP THE TRANSFER, THAT MY RELIANCE IS FALSE? Nope, they discuss it among each other and say NOTHING to me. Not until the end of September do they come clean about the discrepancy. They were hoping to close before I found any of this out! Another key issue only THEY could have prevented! And what does this tell you of their ethical posture of good faith regarding this issue, or lack thereof?
As it turns out, the Court ruled that when CCT DID inform me on Sept 30th that my reliance was misplaced, and they would do only $75,000 and not $100,000 in 2002, that was fine as I could still have walked. CCT took the domain assets and held off 2 months “disclosing” they had lied, but that’s ok. I should note I was singularly running a vibrant business during these “good faith” negotiations. I address elements of Scam Here @ “L”.
Below Left: CCT’S pre-
Below
Right: Oct 16, 2002, 2 weeks prior to P&S CCT removes the term “expenses” and concedes
“But Not Limited To”,instead of disclosing the 2002-
In litigation I find “But Not Limited
To” BACK in the P&S they controlled! CCT knew they couldn’t deduct the bundles they
were hiding without it!
The Courts are oblivious to CCT’s 2002-
ONCE CCT WAS ABLE TO STEAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 5/2/12 BARNSTABLE RULING that CCT “COULD NOT” have withheld a plan to bundle in 2002 negotiations, BECAUSE the CCT hadn’t even conceived of a Bundling Strategy, until Early 2003, I was done. SEVERAL HAVE PERJURED THEMSELVES HERE!
L. Miscellaneous aspects of CCT’s Misconduct: SOME OF THE REST OF THE STORY DETAILED BELOW & DESCRIBED THROUGH THIS WEBSITE:
Appeals Court Judge Wolohojian trusted CCT affidavits that bundling began After the sale in “early 2003”, as I note in #5 of my 2nd Rule 60( b) Motion. AND Her Honor had little patience for those who would deceive the Court, as she has notably stated In Mt Ivy Press v Defonseca:
“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,“.. “and there is no reason to immunize them from the consequences of the most egregious forms of misconduct.” We also consider Defonseca's conduct as a pro se litigant. Although it is true that perjury, standing alone, generally does not support relief under rule 60(b)(6), 8 Mass. App. Ct. 340. MT. IVY PRESS, vs. DEFONSECA.
SOMEONE NEEDS TO INFORM HER HONOR THAT CCT HAS LIED TO THE COURT. ALL EVIDENCE PROVES
CCT HAD A 2002-
As Another Indication of CCT’s Overall deceptive posture, Consider How Differently Each Describes CCT’s experience in Internet Real Estate, DEPENDING on who they are talking to:
1. Kempf reassures Fontaine -
That statement is almost artful in it's deception! “aggressive year over year growth!”
2. Ad Manager Molly Evans Depo at P14 -
3. President Peter Meyer Depo P42/43-
Bob Kempf Depo Page 71 “It was highly speculative at that point in time... it was my understanding that Bob knew that". SURE, they had a PLAN to do $1,300,000 with Bundles doing but $53,000. They give ME a “projection” of up to $4,310,000 INSTEAD, and hold off for 70 days after the P&S to PRETEND to conceive of bundles in January 2003 instead, when the coast was clear. The level of deceit required to accomplish this theft is scary!
ON 12/26/14 IN A DIFFICULT AND EXTRAORDINARY MOVE, I Asked The Court to Reconsider their denial of my Rule 60b Motion. The Court claimed I failed to show for a hearing, I was not Notified. I have not seen the inside of a courtroom since paying the filing fee in 2007. But when attorneys treat the court with contempt, the COURT NEEDS TO HOLD LITIGANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR AFFIDAVITS! 6 MONTHS AFTER CCT PRESIDENT MEYER DIDN’T KNOW WHEN BUNDLES STARTED, CCT CLAIMED IN SJ MEMO IT WAS 2003. WRONG ANSWER. WHY?
I ENDED UP IN CC HOSPITAL FIGHTING MY THEN EMPLOYER CCT, FOR GIVING FALSE PROJECTIONS TO ADVERTISERS. I ALSO FILED A WHISTELBLOWER COMPLAINT AGAINST THEM FOR PUTTING ME IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR UNETHICAL BULLSHIT. HERE IS THAT COMPAINT!
THE May 2, 2012 BARNSTABLE SUPERIOR COURT SUMMARY RULING IS BLANKETED WITH THE CONCLUSION
THAT CCT DIDN’T EVEN CONCEIVE OF BUNDLES UNTIL 2003. CCT SIGNED AFFIDAVITS ADMIT
THEY HAD A PLAN TO BUNDLE ADVERTISING -
SO EASY TO ESTABLISH IS THAT, THAT I PLACED THE GODDAMN SMOKING GUN ATOP MY REPLY
BRIEF, SHOWING CCTS 2002 “REAL ESTATE BOOK BUNDLE” IN CCT DOC TITLED ‘REAL ESTATE
MERGER ANALYSIS” AND WITH MY “CAPECODREALESTATE.COM PRODUCT MIX 2002-
Consider my Petition for Rehearing to the Mass Appeals Court -
By July 2014 I filed a Rule 60(b) Motion with the Barnstable Court, claiming intentional Fraud Upon the Court by Cape Cod Times AND Counsel. The court Denied that claiming I was trying to re litigate facts already decided. In September 2014, I filed a 2nd Rule 60(b) Motion with Barnstable, explaining how the Court’s decision ITSELF evidence that it has been deceived, noting that a decision based on fraud can never be final.
December 9, while I was in Dana Faber Oncology, making unfortunate plans for novel surgery @ Memorial Sloan Kettering, the cancer having returned so much in my leg that surgery would be morbid, there was a hearing in Barnstable Superior. I was never notified. I would have gone to Barnstable instead of Dana Farber, is how important my day in court was to me. The Clerks offices treat a pro se litigant like a leper. I think I’m am going to need some help. I find my self To Small To Prevail, too insignificant.
CCT’s Sur-
So EXACTLY WHAT IS IT THE LAWYERS HAVE BEEN “substantiating”?
Key Elements to consider aside form the 2002-
* See the retaliation Letter CCT gave me upon return from sick leave and hospitalization, as their employee (Bottom of page).
* C21. Consider the position my employer placed me in regarding false projections given to advertisers. June 30 2003 to Ad Manager Molly Evans "I respectfully disagree that this overcharge of C21 was unintentional. and will prove same if need be".
* The January 9, 2003 “Memo” Scam detailed.
* My Motion For Further Appellate Review -
* CCT paid me for bundles (20% of Internet’s 10% share, or 2%, NOT the 20% they bargained to pay me) CCT ITSELF included “Directory Listings” as being eligible for the 20% (even before I knew what those were), so this calculated fraud to redirect those Bundle revenues under the 90% allocation to print scheme is something THEY could have taken out of the P&S, they didn’t. CCT ALTERED THE AGREEMENTS INSTEAD ALLOWING THEM TO REPRESENT WHAT WE HAD AGREED TO.
SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF QUESTIONABLE ANSWERS UNDER OATH BY CCT THAT BEG EXPLANATION INCLUDE:
*The Nutter lawyers stated in Memo for SJ that Bundles were conceived in Jan 2003.
6 mo later in SOF Response #52 same firm admits 2002-
*The H&K lawyers stated in Briefs that CCT conceived of a bundle strategy in Jan 2003, until claiming CCT disclosed in 2002, a document that lists 2002 Bundles.
*CCT President Meyer didn’t know when bundles began in his Aug 2010 deposition, yet the Court ruling In his affidavit, Meyer states that such product bundling began in early 2003" And by February 1, 2011, CCT filed it’s SJ Memo, attesting over and over again, they hatched bundles on Jan 9, 2003. Jan 9 is Staged!
*In 2015, when CCT Counsel told the Court “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,”, were they acknowledging
a false answer on June 14, 2011 in SOF Reponse #52, where they admitted that their
own document ‘RE Merger” established that CC expected $7,300 in Real Estate Book
Bundle Revenue in 2002, 2003-
Is Counsel suggesting that Ad Manager Molly Evans, or Internet Manager Robert Kempf
were being untruthful in their 2010 depositions when they admitted CCT was already
selling Bundled Products by 2003? Is Counsel saying that CCT’s document “Real Estate
Merger Analysis” -
*CCT PERJURY AND FRAUD REMAIN CURRENT:
CCT continues to try and employ that defense in it’s current papers, that the RE Merger is NOT what I’m complaining about.
CCT is trying to tell the Court the 2002-
CCT DOESN’T THINK I’M COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FACT THEY HAD A 2002-
IN THE JANUARY 2015 PAPERS, CCT REPEATS A CLAIM IT HAS MADE ALL ALONG: Contrary
to Fontaine’s assertions, the Real Estate Merger Analysis, with it’s line-
Look at CCT’s SJ Memo signed Feb 1, 2011!
1. Silence? How does CCT’s Silence about Bundles not a material misrepresentation? Instead of Answering my question with the disclosure about their existing Bundles Plans and the 90% allocation “policy” that would CLEARLY “EFFECT THE NET”, CCT takes option #2, remove the term. I look forward to CCT management discussing this issue under oath.
2. BECAUSE CCT HAD NOT YET DEVELOPED THE COMBO ADVERTISING STRATEGY?
The same law
firm that signed this statement, subject to Mass Rule 56e (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) Would be forced to admit 2002 Bundles 6
months later in SOF #52.
These snakes think it was fine that they withheld Bundles and delayed conceiving of them until 70 days AFTER the P&S, and that is perfectly legal?
THE DOCUMENTATION OF CAPE COD TIME’S CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD -
A. CCT is all over the record swearing they hatched bundles after the sale, in 2003.
B.
The Barnstable Court’s SJ Decision Mirrors the false assertions made by CCT and Counsel.
C.
The Mass Court of Appeals Decision Mirrors the false assertions made by CCT and Counsel.
D.
THE TRUTH LOOKS AT WHAT THE EVIDENCE REALLY TELLS US ABOUT WHEN CCT HATCHED BUNDLES.
E.
Details how CCT engineered their “100,000 Deductible Baseline” portion of the setup.
F.
Oct 16, 2002. CCT is caught Altering The P&S and withholding their 2002-
H. Consider the Effort CCT Management placed into making
the FAKE projections, and Hiding the REAL ones.
I. HOW MUCH DID CCT’S CONTRIBUTE?
Wage & Revenue # show that I was responsible for 100% of Revenues.
J. CCT’s Claimed
90%/10% Allocation Policy -
L. Other Miscellaneous aspects of CCT’s Misconduct.
My Feb 2015 video walks through the issues as best as I could.
*(Way too much chemo
in my body as I make this).
At 16:00 of 59:00 I Detail Elements of the Fraud Identified
as A-
WHAT KIND OF JUSTICE IS THIS?
CCT’S OWN RECORDS AND ADMISSIONS SHOW THEY HAD A PRE-
THIS WAS THEIR BASENESS MODEL UNDER THE GUISE OF A PARTNERSHIP! AND THEY ARE CAUGHT BLATANTLY LYING TO THE COURT!
Robert Fontaine 508-
Cape Cod Times can’t handle the truth -
The Verdict: Cape Cod Times Court Blog -
Someone needs to teach CCT how to handle the truth. Because on Feb 1, 2011, exactly two years to the day prior to this CCT publication, Cape Cod Times had signed their Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgement Motion, filed in Barnstable Superior Court.
THAT document is Filled with false assertions made subject to Mass Rule 56e!
Legal Update 1/24/15: Barnstable Notice: My Rule 60b Motion DENIED. CCT has put my integrity into question, The 1st law firm had a retired judge, the 2nd a lawyer involved in Facebook litigation.
I fear my voice cannot be heard here, has not.
Health 2/2015: To extended family, friends, associates, I’m in an extraordinary trial @ Memorial Sloan Kettering thanks to my Docs @ Dana Faber. Details. The melanoma had returned on my leg and appeared to advance by the day. This is my shot. And my health is also why I am compelled to create this record, so these assholes can never fully escape their fraud and perjury!
A. Barnstable 5/2/12 SJ Ruling: fontainesdomains.com/CCT8/summary.html
B. My Appeal
Brief:fontainesdomains.com/DMM//Brief.html
C. My Mass SJC Court Motion for Further
Appellate Review. (SJC Docket)
D. Rule 60b Motion 2nd: fontainesdomains.com/DMM/page16.html
E. Rule 60b Motion 1st: Fontainesdomains.com/DMM/page15.html
F. My Affidavit Rule 60b Motion: Fontainesdomains.com/DMM/rule60facts
G. My Opp to CCT Protective Order: fontainesdomains.com/DMM/
H. Rule 56(e) ignored
by CCT: fontainesdomains.com/DMM/rule56rule60
I. This Video of 2 yrs ago DETAILS &
DOCUMENTS, DOC BY DOC…!!
Fontaine Exhibits .pdf Including signed Signed P&S (Exh #14)
J. Appeals Court Ruling: fontainesdomains.com/DMM/rule28decision.html
K. My Reply
Brief: fontainesdomains.com/DMM/AppellantReplyBrief.html
L. My Appeals Court Petition
For ReHearing.
M. Proof of 2002 Bundles: fontainesdomains.com/DMM/proofx6.html
M. January, 9, 2003 IS FRAUD fontainesdomains.com/DMM/january9.html
O. CCT Altered the P&S. fontainesdomains.com/DMM/butnotlimitedto.html
P. Appeals Docket:
www.ma-
R.
My WhistleBlower Complaint V CCT, Giving false projections
R2. The C21 Fraud. Retaliation
against me by CCT for being Hospitalized
THE BIG LIE! PERJURY! Feb 1, 2011 CCT SJ MEMO Asserts Bundles began in 2003, After the P&S "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".
And sure enough, the Barnstable Court’s May 2, 2012 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”
And “contrary to plaintiff's assertion, documentary evidence indicates that CCT did
not propose -
But on June 14, 2011 (#1), in SOF Reply 52, CCT was forced to concede their 2002
Projection (Smoking Gun) was evidence CCT expected Bundle revenue for 2002!
THE ADMISSION
IN JUNE 2011, THAT CCT HAD A PRE-
So obviously unethical would it be if CCT had an admittedly undisclosed 90% Bundle
allocation plan in place prior to the 2002 P&S, that CCT had to convince the court
bundles began in 2003 -
WHY DOES IT MATTER IF CCT HAD PLANNED BUNDLES IN 2002? As CCT’s SOF 55 described it “The ten percent of revenue from the sale of packaged products that went to Internet sales was credited to Fontaine’s NRS under the terms of his Purchase and Sale Agreement for online products.” I wouldn’t make this deal if I knew they could pull that shit, obviously. So by hiding Bundles and the Policy, CCT bypassed my right to 20% under the P&S, by placing the money in it’s other pocket! I was the sole person to sell into the websites exclusively for the entire deal. The REST of the company selling Bundles, 90% quite an incentive. So during 2002 negotiations, as I did my due diligence, CCT was plotting to deny me 90% of the revenue. 70 days after P&S CCT, pretends to invent Bundles, and sends out 2 dozen pro sales staff, 90% excluded from sale price.
CCT STAGED JAN 9, 2003 BUNDLE, TO MAKE IT APPEAR BUNDLES HAD JUST BEEN BORN! THEY
HADN’T. During 2002 negotiations CCT had the ENTIRE deal pre-
(1) 6/14/2011 CCT WAS FORCED TO CONCEDE THEIR OWN PROJECTION OF THE DEAL INCLUDED
A BUNDLE PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE DEAL 2002-
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-
(2) BUT ON 2/1/2011, 4 MONTHS PRIOR, CCT TOLD A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY IN SJ
MEMO, WHEN THE LAWYERS HAD OBLIGATIONS UNDER MASS RULE 56E!
On 2/1/2011, CCT’s Memo
in Support of Summary Judgment CLAIMS MULTIPLE TIMES THAT BUNDLES BEGAN IN 2003:
P8 :In January, 2003, AFTER the contract had been executed, CCT developed a marketing
concept….” P17 “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”. CCT had to alter
the 2002 financials to hide the 02 Bundle Revenue from me, and now the court.
THE COURTS WERE UNABLE TO SEE PAST THE FALSE AFFIDAVITS, VOUCHED FOR BY COUNSEL,
CLAIMING CCT FIRST CONCEIVED OF BUNDLES IN 2003!
”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”.
AFTER ADMITTING THEY WERE CAUGHT WITH A 2002 BUNDLE [PLAN, CCT WAS NOT SHY ABOUT TELLING THE COURT OTHERWISE! “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) EFFECTIVELY CONCEDING THEY FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE 2002 BUNDLE PLAN.
With all appeals lost and a very serious cancer, I shouldn’t have to waste my time with the litigation misconduct of a wealthy company and experienced counsel, showing no concern (or fear) about the accuracy of their affidavits. An opponent with unlimited time and resources, but ethically bankrupt. Justice? Equal?
