AnatomyofaFraud.com
Fontaine v. Cape Cod Times
*2014 Video to left describes evidence as shown on FontaineVCapeCodTimes.com. But can also be seen in Aug 2016 letter sent to CCT lawyers Aug 2016, pdf below.
These lawyers sent 2 Police Cars to my home in Aug 2016, as a “courtesy”. Instead
of correcting their SWORN, competing, affidavits of fact, or correcting ME as to
MY error, they convince one PD to send another to my Home! Imagine the legal talent
plotting to destroy me as I type. I do. I checked my Linked-
If you bother read my story, which is complex because it has been taking place for a decade, I am pro se, and I have several cancers, you will see that the Court Erred Because it Was Lied to by Lawyers, and NOT because I didn’t absolutely prove every stinking aspect of their fraud! I Did!
This is NOT easy to do, this has never been easy. Pro se Litigation is exhausting. But the record is clear, the affidavits & evidence contained within the record, leave little doubt of these crimes.
I am insulted by the assertions of lawyers that I am simply greedy, wanting another bite of the apple. Bullshit! Remove lawyer affidavits and the truth is plain as day, in the record, everywhere!
In order the the lawyer to have told the truth, the other lawyer and the client had
to lie. Period.
Attorney General, Mass Bar, Your Honors -
If Lawyers can simply lie to courts for a fee, how does someone who cant afford one get justice?
Key Documents -
Cape Cod Times Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, Nutter McClennen &
Fish, Feb 1, 2011 | Barnstable Superior 5/2/12 SJ Ruling that Fell For It!
Fontaine
Exhibits from Barnstable Superior Court | Mass Appeals Court 2013 Ruling | Appeals
Court Docket| Fontaine’s Opening Brief | Fontaine’s Reply Brief.
Fontaine’s Mass SJC
Court Motion for Further Appellate Review. (SJC Docket). Fontaine’s 1st 2014 Rule
60B Motion Claiming Fraud Upon The Court | His 2nd.
THE FOLLOWING August 2016 Notice sent to Counsel for CCT clearly and fully details
the Fraud and the Cover up details the entire scam:
Unless I have misquoted CCT’s
Executives Depositions, Lawyers Affidavits, AND Replaced Record Evidence, They Freely
Admit Jan 9, 2003 is Fake!
These frauds are trying to goad me into breaking the law just as they have done! The Yarmouth Mass Police detective cruisers scream into my front yard I go to the door, 2nd cop says “slow’, wife now listening at the top of the stairs. I hold out my hands, expose my toothpicks, and he says “sorry, I meant I was slow” because he had arrived after the 1st. That was BEFORE I knew why they were there.
He said he read the letter and that “you clearly understand the law, but Manning was concerned with your letter, she felt threatened”, I said that I made sure that there could be NO threat other than litigation in that letter. What the Officer couldn’t know is that for every day for the past 10 years of my life I have spent hours on this case, other than when hospitalized. I know one case. I just copied the relevant law, it is the False Facts that determined This Lawsuit!
BOTH officers agreed that they could find none. They knew it was 101 pages long, and saw no threat. So I wonder how an attorney from Barnstable convinced Barnstable and Yarmouth Police to respond? Both corrupt law firms as well as the spineless Cape Cod Times, and their $100 Billion in ownership corporations, managed to convince the Barnstable Police to have Yarmouth Police intrude on OUR Privacy, when they saw so “no threat”, a “Courtesy” they tell me. I explained the letter was an opportunity for the lawyer, not a threat. With the way Cape Cod Times has Endangered Law Enforcement lately it’s no wonder the police officers in the line of fire would not be big fans of these friggen thieves. “Yarmouth Police Slams Cape Cod Times for Editorial Cartoon”! (July 18, 2016). Just as they seek help from the Courts they have insulted, they have no qualms using the law officers they insult as well! Atty Manning’s firm unexpectedly withdrew half way through this case, I suspect she realized her client was putting on a fraudulent defense, having prevailed in all matters up to that point.
Her firm must have advised her not to implicate the client, to get a restraining
order against me. But with no threat, they couldn’t get one. She made the best choice
among her bad options! She is allowing her false affidavits to stand. She is allowing
her clients false affidavits to stand, at least the one that DIDN’T ADMIT 2002 Bundles,
as the others did. She allows Mitchell’s affidavits to stand, even as they completely
contradict her’s! Her firm had to know that sending cops to my house wasn’t going
to shut me up -
So instead of correcting the clearly conflicting affidavits of Nutter and H&K, one swearing Bundles were hatched on Jan 2003, the other swearing Bundles were disclosed in 2002, or reporting themselves and each other as the law requires, the law firm(s) determined the best way to observe the law was to intimidate me further by claiming a threat (Save those meetings notes Counselors!). Their own statements establish that Lawyers affidavits are false, they MUST be, they conflict! Felony Perjury in multiple courts, and they get the Police to come to MY house claiming a threat the Police don’t see?
I filed suit in US Federal Court in 2007, CCT was a Division of a Delaware corporation, there was diversity between the parties. But as with everything they stole, and the courts gifted them, I had to re file in Barnstable Superior in 2008, and Massachusetts allowed the local business and it’s fancy lawyers to purchase justice through false affidavit. Even as their client admitted the crime.
I would be remiss not to mention that I’ve been in the center of two advanced cancer battles for the past 6 years. Currently in a clinical trial in Memorial Sloan Kettering for malignant melanoma (graphic images), coming on the heels of aggressive prostate cancer. I don’t do this out of boredom, I don’t share my personal secrets and problems in legal documents or in public for fun. I do so because I have little to fear, and I am telling the truth. You know, as in I’m in surgery fighting for my life, and News Corp lawyers are in Barnstable Superior Court calling me a liar.
I filed motions in this case pro se, which the Barnstable Clerk’s Office tried to refuse, the company filed a Motion of “Protection” against me, claiming I was putting an unfair burden of them, as they were lying to the courts about me. I did so in my surgical bandages. Every car door outside my house forced me to get up, when I could, to see if it was the court sending the cops because I stated something improperly.
On Monday August 15, 2016 I spent the day at Dana Farber/Brigham & Woman's. Just trying to stay alive. On Tuesday Aug 16, lawyers for the company I’ve been fighting since 2007 sent two Yarmouth Police Detective Cars to my House, which I explain in further detail below. The lawyer convinced Barnstable Police to send Yarmouth Police to my home, claiming a “threat” she deemed from the Certified Letter I had sent her weeks prior. That letter (pdf. Below) pointed out the specific False statements this lawyer had made in litigation, as well as that of successor counsel.
AnatomyofaFraud.com is a placeholder website as I prepare for the publication of my story.
On January 9, 2003, 70 days after the Oct 31 2002 p&s CCT sends me an email pretending to invent a new concept, “Bundles” (exhibits are in the pdf below), and suggest a 60% share will go to Print Department and 40% will go to Internet, hence inclusive under the p&s. The term “Bundles” not seen in 8 months of negotiations, CCT pointing out to the Court that is because they Conceived of Bundles on 1/9/03.
That was the scam! The Jan 9, 03 Email Bundle Proposal (Ex 19) was completely staged by the Management of Cape Cod Times. They pretend to “conceive” of Bundles they had planned all along, pretend to agree to a 60/40 Print/Internet split 70 days after p&s, Only to invoke a 90%/10% revenue allocation “policy” favoring Print, excluding it from sale price. This was a $3,000,000 deception that effected nearly $1,000,000 in sale price. The Courts EXPLICITLY embrace this Planted Jan 9 Email. As the evidence makes clear, every other recipient of that Jan 9, 2003 Bundle Email “Evidence” knew it was fake, each a manager at CCT. Think about that! It was a complete setup!
The 1st law firm swore to the Barnstable Court in 2011 that CCT’s “Bundles” were
conceived on January 9, 2003, 70 days after p&s.
The 2nd law firm swore to the Appeals
Court in 2013 that CCT “Disclosed” Bundles to me during 2002 negotiations. BOTH are
lying!
Instead of correcting the conflicting affidavits, as the law requires, she
opted to intimidate me by sending the Police to my home.
THIS IS SIMPLE! Nutter’s Lawyer swore Bundles Began Jan 9 2003 AFTER the p&s. But
her co-
YET THE CORPORATION AND EXPERIENCED LAWYERS TRICKED 2 COURTS TO EXPLICITLY HOLD BUNDLES BEGAN ON JAN 9, 2003!
But I Had Uncovered and placed into evidence CCT’S own Secret 2002 Document, where
CCT ALREADY Counts Bundles for this 2002-
Therefore, because I established, and they were forced to admit, that I had caught them Planning Bundles for THIS sale in 2002, ANY AND ALL Statements by in support of the Planted January 9, 2003 Evidence (Ex 19), is brazenly false. Period. This Secret 2002 Plan shows CCT’s REAL Planned pricing, using Bundles at 90/10 Exclusion “policy” expects $1,300,000 during the sale, NOT $4,310,000 they induced me with.
January 9 is proven to be nothing more than planted evidence that two major law firms vouch for. Until they are cornered by the evidence and changed their facts, but they commit perjury in doing so. They lied to the Fed First Circuit in 07, Barnstable in 08, Mass Appeals Court in 13 and Barnstable again in 2014, when seeking “Protection” from me, they didn’t like me pointing out his conflicting statements of fact! Police Visits, Seeking Protection, I must scare these wealthy entities! If corporations are allowed to pay lawyers to lie to courts, we’re all in trouble. Creating evidence instead of arguing facts. The client admitted 2002 Bundles, what are these thieves doing “substantiating” Jan 2003?
I have the documents and admissions of CCT management and lawyers that Bundles were in place before the 2002 sale. Yet since 2007 the Courts of the Commonwealth relied specifically on Manning’s support of the fake Jan 9, 2003 Bundle evidence. I could produce a dozen former coworkers, 3 dozen local Realtors, it’s no Secret CCT didn’t hatch Bundles on Jan 9, 03. Except to Four Judges. A staged Event! In the good old days, when both the criminals and their lawyers themselves admit to the crime, as they do here, the other side would prevail.
So you have to wonder why two Courts Ruled CCT’s Bundles innocently began in Jan
03, 70 Days After the Oct 31, 02 Sale, when The Client, The Client’s Lawyer, and
the Client’s Documents Each Confirm Bundles Began Before 2003? The Court should wonder
too! As my Aug 2016 letter to Counsel noted,”Your collective affidavits form a circular
firing squad of Perjury!” -
The most glaring example of CCT’s guilt in the underlying scam, and of Counsel in the litigation misconduct, is seen in the admission by Nutter Mclennen & Fish on June 14/11, in CCT Statement of Fact Reply 52, where they admit CCT was caught with 2002 Bundles:
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 Reply: "CCT does not dispute Plaintiff's Response 52". Their Own document trapped them in $525,000 Planned Bundles in 2002, for THIS deal!
So HOW IN THE WORLD did Barnstable Rule on 5/2/12 that ”Indeed, contrary to plaintiffs
assertion, documentary evidence indicates that CCT did not propose -
And HOW did the Appeals Court Hold on 12/23/13 that” “After the agreement was executed, CCTimes began to sell Internet advertising in a “bundle”, with print advertising..”? YOUR HONORS, THEY JUST ADMITTED THEY HAD PLANNED $525,000 IN 2002 BUNDLES DURING NEGOTIATIONS FOR THIS SALE!
But this secret 2002 Cape Cod Times Document, which fully itemizes Bundles at the
90/10 Policy for the entire 2002-
On June 16, 2011, 4 months after the Feb 1, 2011 SJ Memo, a Different Nutter attorney than Manning Filed CCT SOF Reply #52:
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 Reply: "CCT does not dispute Plaintiff's Response 52". (But CCT and Co Counsel
DID Dispute JUST THAT on February 1, 2011!)
This secret 2002 CCT Plan is Named after
MY Business, and is absolute proof of the underlying conspiracy as well as the extensive
litigation misconduct!
“Real Estate Merger Analysis, CapeCodRealEstate.com Product Mix and Revenue Projections
2002-
But CCT’s hidden Plan and Nutter’s admission in SOF Reply #52 isn't the Only evidence that attorney Manning’s support of Jan 9, 03 is false:
Internet Manager Kempf, who authored the fake January 9, 2003 Bundle Proposal, had testified in 2010 Depositions that CCT’s Bundles were in place in 2002:
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 as well, under the same
advertising package?
A. I believe there were. (Ya, the guy who concocted January 9,
2003 Bundle email Proposal scam admits CCT had Bundles at least back to 2000!)
CCT’s Advertising Manager Evans testified in August 26, 2010 Deposition that Bundles were in place in 2002:
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.
So far I haven’t seen the part where ANY one of them suggest January 9, 2003 was
CCT’s innocent conception of Bundles, Counsel?
Perhaps Attorney Mitchell from Holland
& Knight provided you cover when he filed his affidavits with the Appeals Court in
2013?
Ahh, maybe not, Mitchell didn’t bother look at the Smoking Gun, or read Nutter’s
SOF Reply $52: “The cited Real Estate Merger analysis makes no reference to any bundled
products, and was simply a revenue projection used in the negotiation of Fontaine’s
Net Revenue Share baseline in connection with the proposed “merger” of Fontaine’s
websites and the CCTimes.” -
So when I pointed out to the Court that RE Merger clearly Counts 2002 Bundles, Mitchell
tried to change his story:
“More fundamentally, the “Real Estate Merger Analysis”
was fully disclosed and provided to Fontaine during the negotiations. Therefore,
Fontaine’s argument that information contained in this document was somehow hidden
from his is specious”.
Oh really Counsel, the Bundles you just swore were conceived on January 9, 2003 were
“Disclosed” during 2002 negotiations?
Perhaps you better inform (or report) Attorney
Manning, because she claims January 9 03 Proves Bundles COULD not be mentioned in
2002.
Oh Ya, and so do you:
“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”.
Manning tells Barnstable Bundles were conceived on January 9, 2003, Mitchell says
they were disclosed in 2002.
ONE of you needs to report the OTHER to the Courts and
the Mass Bar! Actually, you BOTH have an opportunity to blame the other?
CCT Publisher, President, Designated Corporate Representative Peter Meyer had an
affidavit in August 2010 as well! Meyer’s affidavit is telling:
Meyer Deposition Aug
23, 2010 (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....".
So how did CCT Lawyers go into Barnstable Superior on 2/1/11 and assert that January
9, 2003 was the conception of CCT’s Bundles?
All your other clients admitted 2002
Bundles, your own co-
“
Meyer must have gone back and looked it up, subject to actual knowledge, because you came back to Court on February 1, 2011 and Backed January 9, 2003. On 5/3/2012 Barnstable Court’s SJ Ruling held: “In his affidavit, Meyer states that such product bundling began in early 2003”.
So can we get a single answer to the same question from any of you? Sounds reasonable enough to me! Meyer’s memory of 2002 events somehow improved between August 23, 2010 Deposition and February 1, 2001 SJ Memo? Actually, it got worse. Claiming not to know, even when he HAD to, is better than looking it up and offering the wrong answer!
EVERYONE WITH ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE ADMITTED CCT’S BUNDLES WERE IN PLACE IN 2002. EXCEPT
2 LAWYERS WHO SWORE JANUARY 9, 03.
If I had messed up, signed a bad deal, I would
have accepted the result and moved on. But that isn’t what took place here.
I mean,
I caught you all lying, did you expect me just to accept it and go away? I’d have
to be an asshole to let them do this to my family.
Since justice delayed is already justice denied, I hope the courts eventually provide us with a little irony.
NOT SURE WHAT MORE EVIDENCE I COULD OFFER?
I mean , I Placed CCT’s own Marketing Offer
for their July -
Archive.org has forever captured CCT Selling Bundles to Realtors with print Book
& Internet Ads under 1 Price -
http://web.archive.org/web/20020812124634/www.capecoddirectories.com/cape athome/marketing.htm
July 2002 CCT gives me a $4,310,000 projection that ignores the $1,300,000 plan counting 90/10 Bundles, which they WON THIS CASE CLAIMING TO INNOCENTLY INVENT ON JANUARY 9, 2003.
The idea that these lawyers convinced ALL Courts, All Judges to Explicitly Hold they innocently conceived Bundles in 2003, AFTER the p&s, is scary! Manning claimed THIS Bundle was hatched in 2003!
HOW DOES MEYER LET MANNING FILE THE 2/1/11 AFFIDAVIT?
THE COURTS THINK CCT DIDN'T EVEN THINK OF BUNDLING TILL JANUARY 9 2003. BUT THE EVIDENCE TELLS US SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
I DIDN’T LIE AND MY ACCUSATIONS ARE NOT “BALD” OR “BARE”. CCT LIED, AND THEIR LAWYERS LIED. FOR PROFIT.
CCT HATCHED BUNDLES IN 2003 COUNSELORS, REALLY?
Update, August 17, 2002 Yarmouth Police. The certified letter I sent CCT Counsel on Aug 5, 2016 offers the lawyer an opportunity to correct her false statements as well as those of successor Counsel, and her client. They have lied so much, so badly, that EACH of them has affidavits that conflict with the other, and as she is required to do under the law and the rules of professional conduct. 11 days go past and I hear nothing, until 8/17, when two Yarmouth Police cruisers pull into each side of my yard and approach the house. They indicate “Manning” construed my letter below as a “threat”. I explained to them that I spent MANY Months of the many years I’ve spent gathering evidence, and was sure not to threaten ANYTHING other than legal action or publication of my story. I’ve yet to receive the return receipt. They only threat I have EVER made against the lawyers and the company Is their own words, of which they SHOULD be afraid!
The officers indicated they had read my letter “of 101 pages”, I asked them if THEY saw any threat anywhere in that letter. They both said no. Unequivocally. So I don’t know how or whom Manning, who had a retired Barnstable Superior Court judge listed as part of her team at one point, managed to get Barnstable Police to send Yarmouth Police to my private residence, where CLEARLY none could identify a threat. I explained to the Police, who were calm and reasonable throughout, that these billionaires stole my family’s business, lied to the courts, and that had they NOT stolen my money, that same letter sent by My Attorney would be perfectly legitimate. The story is ‘101” pages because it’s consumed 9 years of litigation and my life, through aggressive prostate cancer and malignant melanoma. I’ve been fighting the biggest corporation and largest law firms in the land, pro se, since 2012 Appeal. I’ve got 14 FEET of filings by CCT lawyers, who copied and pasted so much that he swears to TWO OPPOSITE Facts in the same affidavit! I assured the Cops I would have no reason to give Manning another opportunity to escape her public affidavits. They suggested I had this website where I could say what I want, within the law, which I knew and adhered to.
But my issue isn’t with law enforcement, it’s enforcement of the law! The detectives were civil and polite. It is the basis of their presence at my home, that is of worry. I told my wife I was curious why and under what authority they asked me who lived with me in the house. More reasonable than myself, she indicated she felt it was a gesture of decency by the officers. Hope so. But I told them, my wife, my daughter and sometimes my elderly mother. How a lawyer gets two busy detectives to come to my house, when they see no threat, I dont get it? I saw a threat, I promise you that! The cop staring at my sliced and diced cancerous knee, as I was completely unprepared for the occasion. My problem isn’t even with the Courts, who, while ill prepared to care about a pro se litigant, were themselves tricked by experienced attorneys.
I don’t even have a problem with the law governing this case, it’s pretty simple, I win. IF YOU ISOLATE AND REMOVE LAWYER AFFIDAVITS.
I didn’t fight cancers only to allow a crooked company and unethical lawyers to steal from my family. I just didn’t! While I’d rather try surviving cancer than litigating or writing my book for vindication, I’m going to do what I have to do! I will pay a Good lawyer to help me. Or PERHAPS 1 DAY ONE OF THE 4 JUDGES WHOSE RULINGS TRUSTED THE FAKE JAN 9 EVIDENCE DEFENSE WILL READ MY BOOK. Not much more I can do.
I’ve cataloged a list of over 60 lawyers whom I pleaded my story to over the decade, even the kind ones couldn’t see past Manning’s January 9, 2003 Evidence. I’d had expected the pain that resides in my gut, the knots, would be due to physical health reasons, but it’s not. I’ve been fighting these duel nightmares, pro se, since 2012. The Client admitted 2002 Bundles, so did two attorneys. If Miss Manning has no worries about her affidavits that vouch for January 9, 2003, then my story will cause her no concern. These people have ridiculous amounts of wealth, they didn’t need to steal my money. How the Frig am I supposed to die leaving my family's wealth to these crooks? I need help!
As I point out in the pdf below, Manning swore in Barnstable that CCT “conceived”
of Bundling per the January 9, 2003 Bundle Email.
But successor counsel Mitchell was
forced to swear Bundles “were fully disclosed and presented during negotiations”
-
If Manning was lying (she was) she is required to inform the
Court. If Mitchell was lying (he was), Manning is required to inform the court.
When
either of these idiots get ME in court (which they seek “protection” from, so we’ll
see), the OTHER will be my prime witness.
Manning’s lies were primarily in the 2/1/11
SJ Memo, subject to 56e. Mitchell lied in several courts, and actually changed his
facts at will.
Must have been a difficult decision for Nutter Brass, who do we tell,
who can we tell?
The Smoking Gun:
The Cape Cod Times was hiding from me during the 2002 negotiations, this fully itemized Plan, using 90/10 “Bundles” they would pretend to innocently invent (and THE COURTS HAVE ALL ACCEPTED) On January 9, 2003, 70 days after the p&s.
$7,300 to CCT’s Internet Department in 2002 for RE Book Bundles is $73,000 in 2002 Bundle revenue CCT expected for year 2002. $525,000 for the entire deal.
CCT clearly withheld this $1,300,000 Plan, and gave me a $4,310,000 “Projection” in July 2002.
And pretended to invent Bundles on January 9, 2003. Planted evidence.
CCT Execs admitted 2002 Bundles.
CCT Lawyers admitted 2002 Bundles.
2 COURTS, 4 JUDGES
RULED 2003.
An Impossible, Erroneous, Holding.
Let them come after me, individually or collectively! For any one that Backs the January 9, 2003 Email Evidence (Ex 19), that both Courts Back, I’ve got 2 Employee depositions, iv’e got evidence of 2002 Bundles, and an attorney who admits CCT’s 02 Bundles, under oath. For anyone that tries to claim, as Attorney Mitchell did, that Bundles were “disclosed and presented during negotiations” (in 2002).
I’ve got attorney Manning’s affidavit supporting CCT’s Bundle conception of January
9, 2003, and the Barnstable Court who ruled on May 2, 2012 that “pg5. ”Indeed, contrary
to plaintiffs assertion, documentary evidence indicates that CCT did not propose
-
The impediments to justice in the Civil Justice System, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for a Pro Se litigant, are insurmountable. Most likely unconstitutional. But laws are made by lawyers for lawyers who become judges and resent the unrepresented. When retired judges advocate on behalf of wealthy corporate clients, when courts allow lawyer affidavits to blind them from the record evidence directly in front of them, that is hardly Justice. Massachusetts is a safe place to earn legal fees! I’d go to jail if I committed the crimes they are committing! They’re loaded, they should have settled.
* When CCT stole Summary Judgment ruling on 5/3/12, I was left with no attorney,
7+ feet of docs, 5 years of litigation, Fed Exed to me with days remaining to file
a comprehensive appellate brief, pro se.
* As I tried to navigate the case history
in Barnstable, acquired password access to the docket, Mass shut down all access
to the docket for pro se litigants mid-
* When I tried to withdraw my attorney from Barnstable in 2014, as he withdrew
in Appeals Court in 2013, the Clerks Office said only the attorney himself could
withdraw. he replied “dont contact my office again”.
* When Barnstable sent notice
for the 60b hearing, it wasn’t sent to me. Clerk must have sent it to my former lawyer.
I get back from Sloan Kettering with Notice I failed to appear. When I wrote informing
the Court of this mix-
* In 2016, the firm with
the retired Barnstable judge convinces the Barnstable Police to send the Yarmouth
Police to my GOD DAMN HOME, as a “Courtesy” warning. As I explained to the Police,
I was sure to make no threat, and that letter, had it been sent by my lawyers, had
the company and lawyers not stolen all my money, would be perfectly legitimate. LEST
I would have been arrested.
* 2014 Mass Bar replies to my complaint against counsel that they will not investigate, yet refused to return my ONLY original case documents I’ve invested thousands in.
* The Florida Bar regulates more than 95,000 lawyers and opens approximately 7,500 files a year to investigate possible misconduct (FloridaBar.org). Mass Bar 2015 report to the SJC says Mass has 70,885 lawyers. The Office of Bar Counsel opened 734 complaints against attorneys in FY2015. WOW!
In 2002 my local newspaper, The Cape Cod Times, owned by Dow Jones, conspired to steal my dominant Internet Advertising Business. But I caught them. I found their 2002 Smoking Gun plan for The Revenue Share based sale. They were plotting to “Bundle” Print & Internet advertising, so they could claim AFTER the 2002 p&s to have a Bundle Policy that diverts 90% of revenue to Print, excluded from sale price. A million dollar Lie!
If anyone thinks I continue this ordeal out of greed, as lawyers have suggested, or out of boredom, or as if the evidence I point to, the affidavits of the company and lawyers, doesn't confirm my precise accusations, you’re wrong. Litigation is difficult with Counsel, pro se and sick V News Corp is tough!
Their complex scam is now completely documented, allowed them to divert millions in revenues, acquiring my business for a fraction of it’s value. Yet they won this 9 year legal battle by having lawyers “substantiate” evidence which proved CCT “can not” be guilty of hiding their Bundle Plan in 2002, as they hadn’t even “conceived” of Bundles until Jan, 9, 2003. 2 courts Ruled CCT innocently “Conceived” of Bundles on January 9, 2003.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BARNSTABLE OR MASS APPEALS COURTS WERE LOOKING AT, OTHER THAN
THE FALSE AFFIDAVITS OF CCT LAWYERS?
Because if the Jan 9, 03 Evidence is legitimate,
both the client and the other lawyer have committed perjury. Don’t worry, it’s not!
In Fact, nobody other than the Nutter Lawyer even suggested Jan 9, 03 evidence represented
the start of CCT’s Bundle plan! *2/1/11 Memo in Support of SJ.
I forced Both CCT executives who dared answer in 2010 depositions to admit that CCT’s
Bundle plan was in place YEARS before the October 31, 2002 p&s, and was not “hatched”
on January 9, 2003. President Meyer claimed he didn't know which year Bundle began,
3 days before his Ad Manager admitted 2002 Bundles. Controller Hundt, was not made
available by CCT, and they were threatened with sanctions according to the Barnstable
Court docket.
I forced a Nutter Lawyer to admit on 6/14/11 that CCT’s 2002 document shows CCT planned bundles to the dollar for every year of the deal, my Business Name in it’s title. This was 4 months after another Nutter lawyer swore subject to Mass 56e that bundles began Jan 2003. Pick your perjury Nutter!
I forced a H&K Lawyer to tell the Courts in 2013 and 2014 that CCT had “disclosed” Bundles to me prior to the 2002 sale, and ALSO hadn’t even “conceived of Bundles till that January 9, 2003 “evidence”. THIS LAWYER DIDN'T JUST BACK FAKE EVIDENCE, HIS AFFIDAVITS DISPROVE HIS PRIOR ONES!
LET ME MAKE CLEAR -
CCT LAWYER’S AFFIDAVITS that “substantiate” the January 9, 2003 Bundle evidence (Exh
19), when viewed beside the admissions of ALL CCT executives who admitted CCT’s 2002
Bundles, or the CCT lawyer who admitted 2002 Bundles, or the 2002 Smoking Gun plan
for THIS sale, which COUNTS 2002-
ONCE you realize CCT did indeed plan 90/10 Bundles for this entire deal, in 2002, the REST of their scam because plausible, but not until.
I’ve proven they gave me a $4,310,000 “projection” with the July 2002 Offer which completely ignored 90/10 “Bundles” they would pretend to invent on Jan 9, 70 days after the p&s, but were hiding a Plan using 90/10 Bundles that would result in only $1,300,000 in revenue, using “Bundle Policy”. “Bundle” first used on January 9, 2003. SO, w/Bundles CCT had priced the entire sale, and the result would be $1,300,000! They tell me $4,3100,000!
I’ve proven that on Oct 16, 2002, two weeks before the p&s, I had them remove ‘but
not limited to” from the p&s, if they were unwilling to disclosed anything else they
may want to claim the right to “deduct” -
4 Judges embrace the planted Jan 9, 2003 Defense. But the January 9 Evidence is PROVEN
to be nothing more than pure, admitted, documented fraud!
The Courts should be as
embarrassed as the lawyers, and the 3 wealthy corporations, and the executive management
of Cape Cod Times. You can remove the underlying scam, and you are STILL left with
brazen litigation fraud! Regardless if I’m pro se, I should have a seat at the table.
I should be entitled to vindication!
Consider the Fatal Flaw in Cape Cod Time’s absolute defense that Bundles innocently began on January 9, 2003. When you isolate and actually read the the statements by CCT’s lawyer’s during litigation. they expose the absurdity of CCT’s Defense and the Court’s Acceptance of the Jan 9, 2003 Bundle:
1. 2/1/11 CCT’s SJ Memo, Nutter Lawyer offers evidence in support of (Exh 19) that
CCT’s Bundles were innocently hatched on January 9, 2003.
”the bald allegation that
Fontaine reasonably relied on any such statement is squarely contradicted by the
uncontested evidence in the record that the bundling plan wasn't even hatched until
months after contract execution". “in January, 2003, AFTER (original emphasis) the
contract had been executed, CCT developed a marketing concept which was a combination
real estate advertising product”.
2. 6/14/11 Nutter lawyer admits in SOF #52 that CCT’s document established that CCT
expected $73,000 in 2002 Bundle revenues, for THIS sale.
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-
3. 5/2/11 Barstable SJ Ruling made clear Multiple times that “pg5. ”Indeed, contrary
to plaintiffs assertion, documentary evidence indicates that CCT did not propose
-
4. 3/15/13 H&K Lawyer tries to make the 6/14/11 admission magically disappear: “The
cited Real Estate Merger analysis makes no reference to any bundled products…” But
ALSO asserts “Real Estate Merger Analysis” was fully disclosed and provided to Fontaine
during the negotiations.”
H&K told the Appeals Court HE KNEW the document showing 2002 Bundles for this deal
was “fully disclosed” to me during 2002 negotiation? So Why Then had Barnstable Ruled
that “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”. (P8) -
5. 12/23/13 Appeals Court Agree “After the agreement was executed, CCTimes began
to sell Internet advertising in a “bundle”, with print advertising…”
SO THEY ADMIT THE 2002 BUNDLE PLAN, CLAIM THEY “DISCLOSED” IT TO ME, YET WON CLAIMING THEY “CONCEIVED” OF BUNDLES JAN 9, 2003!
The False Statement Page isolates the affidavits where Counsel is clearly lying to
the Court, Nutter while I was battling advanced Prostate Cancer, H&K while I was
fighting malignant melanoma, and representing myself Pro Se. Both of them unequivocally
back the discredited January 9 evidence, in spite of the evidence, documents and
admissions of their own client and co-
So please, 1 good lawyer, 1 good journalist, 1 of the judges whose rulings are shown to be erroneous, ask yourself how ANY fraud and cover up could be more documented? These are serious crimes, felonies of which those not hiding behind the corporate veil, or licensed to practice law, would go to jail. If I were going to cheat someone, steal a quick million, I’d pick an easier target, like they did! I’ve spent a lot of years defending myself from these thieves, but the Courts ignored the evidence, and trusted lawyer’s affidavits instead.
So in 2007 I sued the company, forced them to admit the essential elements of the fraud, forced counsel to admit the specific elements of the fraud, using THEIR documents & affidavits. But Lawyers ignored it all and brazenly deceived the courts into trusting the Planted Jan 9 2003 “evidence”.
IN FACT, they all admitted the January 9 2003 evidence (Exh 19) was NOT valid, they were caught Red Handed with the Smoking Gun! (Below).
This is the story of a fraud perpetrated by our local newspaper, the Cape Cod Times,
in the 2002 sale of my valuable Cape Cod Internet advertising business to them. But
it is also a story of perjury and litigation fraud by two high end law firms representing
three successive multi billion dollar corporate ownership groups. I am just a regular
guy, in litigation against this wealth since 2007, pro se since 2012, battling multiple
cancers, simply seeking someone to look at the record. The company lawyers accuse
ME of being greedy? This stopped being about money many years ago! Ultimately, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts failed miserably in providing justice to what they
saw as a greedy pro-
MY 2007 $1,000,000 93a demand letter was conservative in light of the record evidence.
It should be trebled with mandatory 12% interest to 2002.
If I’m telling the truth
consider the depths they to went for profit & fees, and what it cost us! How easy
it would be to disprove ANY of my points.
The Aug 2016 letter below, which I sent to CCT Lawyers, pointed out that their client admitted the crime, but lawyers false affidavits backed planted evidence. But instead of correcting Me, their affidavits, or co counsel, as required, the lawyers sent the Yarmouth Police to my house as a “Courtesy”.
You Know, one of the Appeals Court judges who ruled in CCT’s favor in 2013, Holding that CCT’s “Bundles began after the sale” in January 2003, has ruled Pro se litigants and be guilty of fraud upon the court. In Mt Ivy Press V Defonseca, the Honorable Justice concluded:
“Defonseca proceeded in part pro se, and she now argues that only an officer of the
court can commit fraud on the court. Although fraud on the court typically involves
officers of the court, we are unprepared to say that pro se litigants are in all
circumstances insulated from committing fraud on the court. Pro se litigants are
generally required to comply with the same rules as represented parties and their
attorneys, see, e.g., Pandey v. Roulston, 419 Mass. 1010 , 1011 (1995); Kyler v.
Everson, 442 F.3d 1251, 1253-
Could someone explain to Her Honor that Experienced Lawyers backed the FAKE Jan
9, 2003 evidence which Her 12/23/13 Ruling Embraces?