There are several points I would like to make regarding this appeal decision.

"AFTER" the agreement. There can be little SERIOUS question but that "Bundles" HAD to have been conceived PRIOR to the sale.

The Barnstable Court ruled that CCt conceived of bundles in Jan 9, 2003, "AFTER" the sale.

Therefore, ANY and ALL evidence proposing to indicate otherwise, is FALSE. "Substantiatied Evidence" that the CCT Law firms attested to, IS FALSE. 

And therefore, 2 courts, 4 judges have issued factually incommect decisions affirming "AFTER". 

IF THE COURT CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT CCT OBVIOUSLY HAD  BUNDLES DURING NEGOTIATIONS, IN 2002,  "BEFORE" THE SALE, THEN THEY HAVE NO CHANCE OF UNDERSTANDING THE REST OF THE FRAUD.
 

SO LONG AS THE COURT IS GOING TO BE MISLED BY THE OFFICERS OF THE COURT - CAPE COD TIME'S LAWYERS - WHY EVEN BOTHER?
 
 
 
 

A.
Gee. since CCT knew of bundles, at 90/10 for the whole deal, IN 2002, and then fought to keep in the term "But Not Limited To" in the agreement (before sneaking it back in), So it's BOB FONTINE'S fault that bundles are not mentioned in the "P&S".

How could they, CCT colluded to invent then on 1/9/13 instead? *Discounts weren't taken from Gross, the price was RAISED, the "Discounts" was the 20% they ripped me off. I PAID THE ENTIRE "DISCOUNT". That was the scam.
 

B.
Imagine, as My "Smoking Gun Page" details, CCT swore to Barnstable Court that their 90% diversion of revenue to the print department in Bundles was JUST "bookkeeping". They told THAT court it was due to the COST of Print.

Yet in Appeals Court, they said the 90%/10% split was due to the "value" of the 2 products in the sale. Completely different reason. It seems to me that the fact they cant gte their affidavits striaght should cast doubt on ANY legitimate business reason - other than to steal 20% from me!
 

C. 
THIS IS TOUGH! I spent hundreds of hours and all of my money learning years of a lawsuit in a few months, in order to met the requirements, which lawyers have sent back unaccepted all the time, when I filed my brief. The courts say that the clerk sends the record from the lower court up to appeals court. 

I then created 50+- page Appendix, referring to the specific points of evidence that I was pointing to. Just as the clerks office had informed me "only include exactly what you want the court to consider". I was told. The docs were here in my possession, I could have sent 10,000 docs to the court, had I know they wanted it. 

One of the H&K attorneys brief filings referred to his side as the appellant, I had to notify the court of the error, so that MY brief could be docketed (these are public records). And another time H&K lawyers filed to change lead attorneys, only to note the new one was leaving the country.

But they made sure to mention in that Motion that the court had given ME an extension, but didn't mention mine was due to my mom's lung cancer surgery, and my own cancer.
 

D.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE THE COURT'S ERROR IN "BEFORE" OR "AFTER" MATTERS! 

Here, the court assumes my due diligence in asking CCT about "both" would mean within our deal means that I was aware of the posibility of bundling and should have protected myself. And to complain about it now is too late.

When in reality, I was asking the RIGHT question and tyhe court should be be asking CCT "SO WHERE IS YOUR REPLY WITH THE DISCLOSURE?"