Below is my Pending (9/16/2014 I think it was) Opposition to CCTime’s “Protective
Order” they sought against me.
These shitballs have the nerve to suggest I have inconvenienced
them.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BARNSTABLE SUPERIOR COURT
NO. BACV2008-
_________________
Robert Fontaine,
Plaintiff
v.
Cape Cod Times
Defendant
________________
OPPOSITION TO CAPE COD TIME’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
THE ONLY DISPUTE HERE SHOULD BE BETWEEN CAPE COD TIMES AND ITSELF. CCT HAS ADMITTED
THEY EXPECTED “REAL ESTATE BOOK BUNDLE” REVENUE IN YEAR 2002. THE ENTIRE DEAL 2002-
SOF Response #52: “The document "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".
SO
WHY DOESN’T CCT’S ACCOUNTING DISCLOSE THOSE 2002 REVENUES?
IF 10% WAS POLICY IN 2002,
WHY WOULD A JAN 9/03 MEMO PROPOSE 40%?
SO WHY DID THE COURT RULE ON 5/2/12: ”CCT could not have misrepresented to Plaintiff, an advertising program that did not exist during the 2002 negotiations”?
CCT MISLED THE COURT TO RULE BUNDLES WERE CONCEIVED IN 2003.
THE JANUARY 9, 2003 “MEMO”
WAS A COMPLETELY STAGED EVENT!
CCT OBVIOUSLY withheld in 2002 this bundle plan and the policy which projects $1,300,000
in 2002-
Every time CCT repeats this statement they are knowingly deceiving the Court!
“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).
The Nutter attorney on June 14, 2011 had already acknowledged that CCTimes was CAUGHT counting Real Estate Book Bundles in 2002, and 2003, and 2004, and 2005, and 2006, in document that is pre prices the entire deal at this concocted 90%/10% allocation scheme. $7,300 to Internet in 2002 would be $73,000 in sales at 90/10.
THE COURT’S MAY 2, 2012 RULING PROVES IT IS BEING DECEIVED INTO IGNORING CAPE COD
TIMES PRE-
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 -
pg5. ”CCT could not have misrepresented to Plaintiff, an advertising program that did not exist during the 2002 negotiations”.
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”.
The Court CLEARY does not recognize Cape Cod Time’s 2002-
Cape Cod
Times and Counsel KNOWS the Court does not recognize this plan.
A Court of law cannot be expected to administer equal justice so long as these extraordinarily powerful commercial litigants and their experienced counsel are allow to influence the Court with false representations, and to be honest, flat out lies.
Cape Cod Time’s current MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER claims Fontaine’s “groundless petition for extraordinary relief is unnecessarily consuming the limited resources of the Court, and is placing an unfair burden on Cape Cod Times”.
That statement is insulting. The litigation misconduct by these MASSIVE CORPORATE entities has caused enormous strain on Fontaine, and the Court.
HOW FAR IS THIS LITIGATION MISCONDUCT GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO GO? CCT’S Appeal Brief
“The Real Estate Merger Analysis makes no reference to any bundled products”-
THEREFORE, WHEREAS CCTIMES IS ON RECORD BOTH ADMITTING THEN DENYING THAT WHICH THEY CANNOT DENY, 2002 BUNDLES, AND WHERE THE COURT HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN DECEIVED BY THESE INTENTIONAL AND FRAUDULENT ACTS, FONTAINE ASKS THE COURT TO DENY THIS MOTION AND TO HOLD CCT AND COUNSEL IN CONTEMPT OF COURT.
The Barnstable AND the 3 Panel Appellate Ruling are completely based on the pretext that Bundles were NOT conceived until 2003! The evidence IN THE RECORD establishes this Bundle Plan in place prior to the 2002 sale, yet Top CCT Management and Counsel continue to represent, without equivocation, that CCT did not even concieve of a print and internet bundling strategy until “AFTER” the sale, in 2003.
EACH AND EVERY STATEMENT CLAIMING THAT AS FACT IS FALSE. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES CCTIMES SWEARS UNDER OATH THAT IT IS SO. AND THEY HAVE DONE SO FOR OVER 7 YEARS OF LITIGATION.
CCTimes recent denials begin to seek cover, indicating their consciousness of guilt, by suggesting that “even if bundles were conceived prior to the sale…” defense. THEY CLAIM ON PAGE 3 IT IS “IMMATERIAL”.
IF BUNDLES WERE CONCEIVED PRIOR TO 03 THEY WERE WITHHELD FROM FONTAINE, AND CONTINUE TO BE BRAZENLY WITHHELD FROM THE BARSNATBLE COURT AND THE MASSACHSUETTS COURT OF APPEALS AND, IN EFFECT, THE SJC AS WELL!
CCT’S 2/1/11 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS SUBJECT TO RULE 56(E), ATTESTING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT CCTIMES CONCEIVED OF BUNDLES IN 2003, IS FALSE, IT IS PERJURY, IT IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
FONTAINE HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE HIS VOICE HEARD JUST AS LOUD AS THE HUGE CORPORATION, AND HIS WORD IS AS GOOD AS ANY OFFICER OF THE COURT!
Respectfully
Robert Fontaine. Pro se, Plaintiff.
(508) 394-