AnatomyofaFraud.com
May 2, 2012 Barnstable Ruling
The ONLY ones who even claimed CCT could not hide plans to Bundle in 02, as proven
by the Jan 9, 03 Bundle Email. Are lawyers. CCT admitted the crime!
GIVE ME A BREAK!
I presented the courts with overwhelming evidence, admissions, documents, emails,
archive.org, proving Bundles Planned BEFORE January 9, 2003.
EVERY STATEMENT BY THESE TWO LAW FIRMS IN SUPPORT OF THE JANUARY 9, 2003 BUNDLE “CONCEPTION” IS PERJURY.
Yet as quoted Below, Barnstable Ruled 5/2/12 that BECAUSE Bundles Began on JANUARY
9, 2003, CCT
“COULD NOT” HAVE “began, proposed, implement, concept, contemplated,
misrepresented, concealed, discussed, expressed, proposed Bundles UNTIL JAN 2003.
Yet Mitchell @ H &K later swore (falsely), that Bundles were “Fully disclosed and
presented” during 2002 negotiations. Nice trick Counsel, but it’s perjury.
This is how NM&F Attorney Manning portrayed me in HER False Affidavits in CCT Summary
Judgement Memo signed 2/1/11, filed in Barnstable Superior on 6/14/11?
“Fontaine has
produced no evidence whatsoever that points to any action taken by CCT which would
constitute the level of “rascality" as required under section 11. This was an arm's
length transaction between two businesses, both represented by counsel throughout
the negotiations, which resulted in Fontaine freely and voluntarily executing agreements
that he now seeks to rewrite because he was unhappy with how things turned out. Chapter
93A is not applicable in these circumstances”.
As she repeatedly vouched for Fake Jan 9, 03 evidence as proof of her client’s innocence. Counsel also forgets to tell the Court that her client had altered the agreed to terms of the p&s on Oct 16, 2002, so they could deduct the Bundle plan they were hiding, to Invent AFTER the p&s, Jan 2003.
That same day, June 14, 2011, her Co-
Attorney Manning ignored Mass Rule 56(e) “Form of Affidavits; 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”. She claimed to know Jan 9, 2003 was legitimate. It’s not.
SIMPLE FACT: The 90%/10% Bundle Allocation “Policy” if a Fraud REGARDLESS of when
it began, Before OR After:
IF CCT had a 90%10/% Bundle Policy BEFORE Oct 31, 2002
P&S, BEFORE Jan 9, 2003, they obviously failed to disclose it to me before the sale,
AND COMMITTED FRAUD.
IF CCT instituted the 90%/10% Bundle “Policy” AFTER the p&s,
Diverting 90% of all Revenue Share Income away from sale price, THEY COMMITTED FRAUD.
Below is quoting the 5/2/12 Barnstable SJ Ruling, as copied from the Aug 2016 Journal,
I sent to NM&F, the Court clearly thinks Jan 9, 03 is Real -
In Green are statements from the Barnstable Court 5/3/12 SJ Ruling.
A Court that was clearly moved by the evidentiary value of the January 9, 2003 Evidence. Erroneously.
How can a court accept they conceived of Bundles in 2003, but had an existing Bundle
Policy too?
“Robert Kempf did not propose the concept until January 2003” Ya, that’s
not what Kempf said.
“CCT could not have misrepresented to Plaintiff and advertising program that did not exist during the 2002 negotiations”.
BARNSTABLE RULED CCT “COULD NOT” BE GUILT BECAUSE OF EXH 19, JANUARY 9, 2003.
Consider
the influence of January 9, 2003, Exhibit 19, in that erroneous conclusion.
Consider
the influence of False Lawyer Affidavits vouching for Jan 9 in that erroneous conclusion.
Cape Cod Times misrepresented to me a program that DID exists during 2002 negotiations.
Cape
Cod Times also misrepresented January 9, 2003, as the conception of Bundles, period.
Bottom left is Mitchell’s quote. Insisting he’s “substantiated evidence” January 9, 2003.
The law firm before him, NM&F admitted in SOF 52 CCT planned Bundles in 2002.
The dates at the bottom are 5 times I have documented him having copied and pasted the false statement, two different courts.
Too lazy to see “Real Estate Book Bundles” for 2002 in the Smoking Gun, he would rather copy and paste his felony onto 5 separate legal filings. Then use the US mail to send my copies as well.
I wonder if he knew of the $73,000 in 2002 Bundle revenue #52 admits, he didn't tell the court of it?
To Left is copied from the 5/2/12 Barnstable SJ Ruling. It should include most of “January 2003 Bundle” references by Barnstable that I described above.
I mean seriously, HOW exactly did CCT innocently conceive of Bundles on January 9, 2003?
After Identifying at least 6-
The Barnstable Ruling was 16 Pages including Cover and Signature pages, and at least 6 times it relies on January 9, 2003.
SOMEONE should let the Court know that January 9, 2003 is Planted Evidence.
“Documentary evidence” indicates CCT did not implement much less implement a Bundle Strategy until 2003?
HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE? IT ISN’T!
SHOULDN'T THE COURT BE INTERESTED IN WHAT JAN 9, 2003 IS ALL ABOUT?
AND WHY LAWYERS
ARE SUBSTANTIATING IT, OFTEN, FOR SO MANY YEARS, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY?
* They were Marketing Bundles when they gave me the July 2002 Offer. They were asking $220 a page, in Print and also online. They disclosed ZERO 2002 Bundle revenue!
* Kempf and Evans both admitted CCT had the Bundles in place in 2002, Kempf said
2000.
* The Sept 2003 CCT Management email shows them all talking about 2002 Bundle Revenue,
to the dollar.
* The Smoking Gun shows $520,000 in Bundles Planned, in 2002, for THIS sale.
* Nutter McClennen & Fish admitted 2002 Bundles in CCT sof 52 on June 14, 2011.
* Holland & Knight told the Appeals Court that CCT “Disclosed and Presented” the
Smoking Gun, with it’s Bundles, to me BEFORE the Oct 31, 2002 p&s.
The Factually Erroneous Rulings of the Barnstable Superior Court. Summary Judgment Ruling of May 2, 2012.
The Evidence couldn't be more factually definitive if I were a legal scholar, And not a broke pro se litigant fighting the likes of, the lawyers of, Dow Jones, News Corp, Gatehouse Media. I presented the Courts with at least 10 different items of evidence, each belonging to CCT, which establish their guilt. Their records. Their affidavits. Their Lawyers. Their admissions.
CCT had concealed their plan to Bundle during this sale during 2002 negotiations, then acted out a show to pretend to invent them AFTER the October 31, 2002 P&S. On January 9, 2003, 70 days after p&s, they send new partner and employee Fontaine a “Bundle proposal”.. Pretending to invent Bundles. It was all a scam! A $3,000,000 Lie!
Wonder why CCT didnt make the guy who would have counted the $73,000 in 2003 Bundle Revenue available for deposition?
Let Me Point out the Grip Lawyers have on the Judicial System in Massachusetts.
To show you whose running the show, I was PLEADING with my own lawyer, when I could find him, as months turned into years, to PLEASE hurry the case up.
The lawyers talk about how strenuous litigation can be for a client, as half are paid based on time, others are shuffling 50 Clients.
I later find out that some of MY requests for continuance., he used ME and MY illness as a REASON for the delay. Sick.
Clients dont see the docket, they dont know the games the lawyers are playing, accommodating themselves at the expense of the Client. And H&K Mitchell accuses me of wasting Court resources.
#6. Lawyer asks for continuance.
#7. Lawyer asks for continuance.
#8. Lawyer asks for continuance.
#13. Both Lawyers ask for continuance.
#14. Lawyer asks for continuance.
#15. Lawyer asks for continuance.
#19. Lawyer asks for continuance.
INTERESTINGLY, #18, June 14 2011, NM&F files BOTH SJ Memo Backing January 9, 2003 evidence, and CCT SOF Admitting $73,000 in 2002 Bundles.
2 weeks later, June 28 -
2 weeks later, July 12 -
So after 5 years of litigation, from US First District Court in Boston, to Barnstable Superior Court, and immediately after filing conflicting and demonstrably false affidavits, her SJ Memo, Nutter withdraws?
WHY? NUTTER MUST HAVE RECOGNIZED THEY HAD DECEIVED THE COURT.
I’D LOVE TO KNOW WHAT THE LAWYER SAID TO THE CLIENT WHEN THEY REALIZED JAN 9 WAS FAKE, OR LAWYERS FROM BOTH FIRMS SPEAKING WITH OTHER LAWYERS ABOUT IT?
Barnstable’s Ruling then Mirrors the false assertions of NM&F, who is long gone, and Holland & Knight then DEFENDS Nutter’s False affidavits in the Appeals Court, then Back in Barnstable when I filed 2 Rule 60b’s in 2014.
I Hope a Judge can ask the law firms if BOTH knew Jan 9, 03 is Fake?
*Correction to Audio:
I state Barnstable had this Archive.org evidence of 2002 Bundles.
I presented this 1st to the Appeals Court in 2012/2013 -
Barnstable wouldnt be privy to it until 2014 Rule 60b Motions.
*Correction from Audio:
I state this is a 2013 CCT Management discussion, but it it
2003.
It’s as easy as ABC!
A. Smoking Gun below they have counted $530,000 in 90/10 Bundles IN 2002.
B. January 9, 03 they ‘conceive” of Bundles and pretend they will Allocate 60/40.
C. Here, September 2003, 8 months after pretending to invent Bundles, pretending 60/40, the SAME top 4 CCT Managers talk about the 2002 Bundle revenue with absolute knowledge to one tenth of one percent.
So WHY didnt CCT Account for a CENT in 2002 Bundle revenue they KNOW TO THE PENNY?
They were required to disclose it.
They had to pay me for it in 2002.
They had to disclose
it in discovery.
Because they cant let the Courts know January 9, 2003 is Fake!