AnatomyofaFraud.com
TOP 10 EVIDENCE OF CCT’s SCAM
3. July 2002 CCT Offers to Purchase My Business came with a Projection of $4,310,000,
WHEN they were hiding the Smoking Gun $1,300,000 Plan!
This is proven to be fraudulent
inducement in a very calculated scam. The $1.3 shown above, the $4.3 shown in #5
below, and here on a separate page.
CCT’s Late June 2002 Offer was for 18% Share running
from and inclusive of year 2002, through 2006. The July Offer was for 20% 2002-
CCT added a $100,000 yearly deduction to the Offers, claiming they were already doing
$100,000 per year in Internet Real Estate Advertising. Leading up to these offers,
and in response to this July Offer, CCT had assured me, in writing, they were already
doing $100,000 on their own, as the basis for deducting $100,000 per year. This was
a lie -
Want to talk about fraud? CCT told the court they had no revenue prior to the sale, and only had Bundle Revenues beginning in Jan 2003, 70 days after the sale. Yet CCT indeed claimed $75,000 in 2002 revenues at the time of the sale. I’ve figured out how and why! The Smoking Gun shows (and NM&F Admit in SOF Reply 52), that CCT expected $73,000 in Bundle sales for year 2002. And CCT’s 1st p&s draft listed an August…….. 2002 closing date. As 2002 went on, and I did further due diligence, CCT realized the sale was going to be closer to end of year, and could not prove the $100k they had confirmed (whereas it would be un provable if we closed mid year). Since I was the primary sales person for Internet RE after the sale, I found there was practically ZERO advertisers renewing in 2003, as there was nothing to renew… EXCEPT for the Bundles they had bought in 2002.
CCT actually used the $73,000 in 2002 Bundles they have sworn they conceived of in 2003, to build up their 2002 Revenue Total, so I (and the court) wouldnt catch them hiding Bundles, or failing to account for (and pay me per the p&s) for that 2002 Bundle revenue. They used the Bundle revenue they were hiding and claimed to me it was Internet advertising revenue. I can point directly to CCT’s Billing Disks from 2002 which show that AFTER the sale they simply changed the name in their system of what they called a bundle, to something different. I had leading Realtor advertisers on Cape Cod, including the then President of the CCIAOR, on my witness list. And dozens of others. But Courts let lawyers steal Summary Judgment ruling. So they could steal $500,000.
But as Damning as that evidence is, even more so are the 3 unsolicited projections
gave me along with the June & July 2002 Offers. CCT told ME they projected up $4,310,000
during the deal.
Since the Smoking Gun lists full year 2002 Revenues, including 2002
Bundles, we know if wasn’t made AFTER the $4,310,000 Projection given to me mid year
(CCT would have used real #s).
So CCT created the Smoking Gun Projection, using their
intended pricing, including $530,000 in Bundles for the 2002-
So they had calculated the deal to the dollar, prior to any offer (or acceptance), with Bundles, to total $1,300,000. They tell me they think $4,3100,000, and then pretend to conceive of Bundles 70 days after the sale, on January 9, 2003. The effort Ad Manager Molly Evans describes in deposition of her, Ad Manager Kempf, and “Peter” placed into “molding” this $4,310,000 projection is most telling!
They only thing I asked was for them to tell the truth, so I could make an informed decision with this business I spent years building to dominance, Good Faith & Fair Dealing, yet not a single one of them were willing to put law and ethics above their own greed and advancement. The $4,100,000 was a 3 million dollar lie, fraudulent inducement. And it took all 3 top executives to make it work!
So when the lawyer repeatedly perjured herself in her Summary Judgement Memo signed Feb 1, 2011, vouching for the important fake January 9, 2003 Bundle document, tells the court that I am simply being greedy, that causes me to continue this fight until the end. Insulting that Courts would allow lawyers to win by false affidavits. Especially when the pro se litigant forced them to admit guilt.
“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 -
Counsel, they claimed a $4.3 projection that ignored Bundles, and were hiding a $1.3 Plan using them. This case is the Poster Child for Chapter 93a, including lawyers lying to courts.
2. CCT’S scam was in the works as early as Oct 13, 2001 -
CCT Management had been working with Dow Jones to get approval for
the sale. They had clearly given their corporate parent the Real Projection with
Bundles -
The Barnstable Court on Page #1 noted that I had “again contacted” CCT by email on
Oct 12, 2001, after having previously having contacted them, and “CCT did not respond
to his request” -
CCT’s Kempf: "sorry we've been out of touch for so long'' -
Had this gone to trial, instead of being extinguished in the Summary Judgment Stage on 5/2/12, by the lies of lawyers, I would have explained to a jury that CCT DID respond back, WERE “VERY MUCH INTERESTED”. I would have pointed out I had already met CCT President Meyer, been to lunch multiple Times with both Ad Manager Kempf and Ad Manager Evans (hence Kempf mentions “Molly”).
I would have pointed out that CCT already had the Smoking Gun Bundle plan for this
deal in place in 2001, and had given THAT to Dow Jones to decided the merits of the
deal. The $1,300,000 projection that included Bundles. Not the $4.3 version they
gave me July 2002, that is devoid of any Bundle calculation (in which they were plotting
to re-
Important to understand that CCT had to have the Smoking Gun 2002 Bundle plan in place during at this time in 2001, to give to DJ. Yet they sell the Court Bundles began in 2003!
4. Oct 17, 2002, After a year of negotiations, 2 weeks prior to Oct 31 Closing, I PRACTICALLY BEGGED CCT TO DISCLOSE BUNDLES! They Declined!
Fontaine Exhibit #13 of the October 2002 Exchange shows how specifically I was pressing them to disclose Anything that would “effect the Net”. They disclose nothing, the word Bundles is not seen on the record until January 9, 2003. And, Therefore, No Mention of this 90%/10% Bundle allocation “Policy” was disclosed either.
But you know what they did instead? They agreed to removed the very term that they
alone knew they would need to account for “Bundle” allocation any differently -
2 weeks later we have a closing at CCT’s Hyannis offices, no lawyers, me and the
CCT top executives. Not until litigation do I see they actually snuck “But Not Limited
To” back into the Oct 31 P&S. And then used the term they stole, to legitimize their
right to price Bundles 90/10 to the Court. CCT would have ZERO way of explaining
HOW this key term made it’s way back into the agreement. NONE.
*Did I mention the
atty for DJ in the case left News Corp under the cloud of a circulation scam, faking
#s to gain contracts. And CCT’s atty who handled all draft updates on this altered
p&s, later had his licensed revoked by Massachusetts for filing false records with
the courts. And I prove here how BOTH law firms in litigation also deceived the
court. Company and lawyers alike, unethical frauds.
CCT’s anticipated August 2002 Closing having passed, 2 weeks before the closing,
CCT STILL has not used the term “Bundles” or “Bundle Policy”. And I am STILL trying
to get CCT to disclose anything that will “effect the net”. Smoking Gun shows us
CCT had long prior Priced the entire 2002-
But instead of disclosing Bundles, and the $3,000,000 difference between their Real Projection using Bundles ($1.3) and the Projection given to me ($4.3), and not knowing what they know, I force them to concede the very term that would allow them to allocate ANYTHING differently, But Not Limited To. That issue clarified, we moved onto closing 10/31/02, never addressed again.
So WHY would CCT concede the term that they alone knew would prevent them from allocating
ANY of that Bundle Revenue to Print, 90% by Policy at that?
Because they HAD to know
they were going to surreptitiously reinsert that key term into the signed agreement,
which took place without lawyers, per CCT’s suggestion.
5 CCT ALTERED the P&S we signed Oct 31 -
7. The completely fictitious and fraudulent January 9, 2003 Bundle Proposal Email that CCT didnt need to make, didnt plan to use, and didnt use.
WHO IS KIDDING WHO?(Lawyers are kidding Judges)
The very same 4 CCT executives who created the Smoking Gun for year 2002 @ 90/10
Bundles, are the same 4 executives who were fighting over 1 10th of 1% (88.6% to
Print, 11.4% to internet -
Funny thing is, CCT didnt price towards this complex “Proposal”, even as they prepared the sales army to immediately begin selling it.
Another funny thing is, we have 6 different statements by 6 different CCT executives, each giving a different reason why the 90%/10% Bundle is CCT Policy to begin with. Some policy.
Finally,everyone away of the Smoking Gun know CCT has the policy and plans to use it. This complex plan was meaningless, other to to deceive me. We never see anything in writing to show how THIS January 9, 2003 Bundle Plan at 60/40, WAS NEVER allocated at 60/10.
Nope, about a year later, in 2004, when DJ was paying me for 2003 Revenue Share Results, do they start to make noise about this 90/10 Policy.
CCT spent the entire deal, from Jan 9, 2003, 70 days after they induced me to sign the altered p&s, requiring all salespeople to sell into the deal, but only through Bundles, knowing they would secretly retain 90%of it.
If even ONE of the 4 judges whose Ruling embrace the legitimacy of the Fake January 9, 2003 Bundle evidence understood it was all a lie, they didnt show it. I placed the Smoking Gun, with it’s $530,000 in Bundles Planned for this sale in 2002, atop my Appellate Reply Brief.
The Times is guilty of Hiding Bundles in 2002.
The Lawyers are guilty of lying to
the Court about Jan 2003.
The Court of allowing lawyer affidavits to trump evidence.
THIS SCAM SO CALCULATED I CONTINUE TO FIND INDICATIONS I MISSED!
Just Now, Oct 2017,
I remembered that after the Oct 2001 p&s, and a year of planning & negotiating, CCT
asked me to continue working from my home/office as I had for years in building the
business, as they were trying to set me up an email address and find me a computer.
I was a little taken aback by that, the whole idea was “we are owed by Dow Jones” and therefore have plenty of resources. DJ had sent me the initial sales check direct.
So the communications show I got in perhaps December, then holiday stuff, and 9 days into 2003 they send me this Jan 9 Bundle, as if I’m a Manager like the other 4 (as they told DOL), and mark it as “for internal consideration only”.
That was only the 2nd time I had seen a document so marked, the other was the Smoking Gun. BOTH were created to deceive me, and NOT let me find out OR DISCUSS Bundles, until they could invent them on Jan 9, 2003.
So 2 mo after the sale “Dow Jones” give’s me Molly’s used computer.
After awhile if
it walks like a duck, and keeps ducking the truth, guess what?
CCT ADMITTED BUNDLES IN PLACE BEFORE JAN 9, 2003. NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE COURT.
To the right, as I’ve articulated to the Courts and the Bar, taken from the Aug 2016 Certified letter I sent to NM&F, who answered by sending the Yarmouth PD to my home, CCT ADMITTED BUNDLES DID NOT START ON JANUARY 9, 2003.
CCT Business Internet Manager Kempf stated in depo that CCT was doing this exact
Bundling as far back as 2000.
CCT Ad Manager Evans admitted the Bundle was in place
in 2002, and WAS NOT INNOCENTLY CONCEIVED JAN 2003.
CCT President Meyer Did Not Know
when Bundles began in 2010 Deposition, 6 Mo later Lawyers falsely said Jan 9, 2003.
Controller
Hundt was made unavailable for deposition at the threat of Sanctions. THEY ALL KNOW
JAN 03 IS A FARCE!
NM&F ADMITTED THE SMOKING GUN SHOWED CCT EXPECTED 2002 BUNDLE REVENUE.
June 14, 2011, after Kempf & Evans 2010 deposition admitted pre Jan 9, 2003 Bundles, a Nutter attorney was confronted with the Smoking Gun, CCT secret plan for the deal, and had to admit CCT had the entire sale planned with Bundles.
That same day, ANOTHER NM&F attorney filed CCT’s SJ Memo, swearing throughout that Fontaine was lying, and “substantiated evidence” proved CCT innocently “conceived of, hatched, began” Bundles on January 9, 2003.
The 5/2/12 Barnstable Superior Court Ruling fully embraced the Jan 9, 2003 Sham Evidence
as proof of CCT’s innocence.
“CCT could not have misrepresented to Plaintiff an advertising
program that did not exist during the 2002 negotiations”
The 12/23/13 Appeals Court
affirmed Barnstable and Jan 9, 03 defense, and ignored the Smoking Gun atop of my
Brief.
“After the agreement was executed, CCTimes began to sell internet advertising
in a “bundle”, with print advertising..”.
So the client, it’s records and it’s lawyers admitted to the essential elements of the crime. And Still Won!
The Company admitted Jan 9, 2003 was not evidence of innocence, it is evidence of Guilt. So does it’s records So did it’s lawyers. The Court ignored it all!
6. CCT allowed the Courts to rule they conceived Bundles in Jan 2003, Yet ALL CCT management KNOWS 2002 Bundle revenue to the PENNY!
*CCT’s Offer of 20% Revenue Share & 10% Sale Commission represented 30% Potential
of $4,300,000 they claimed to project. $1,300,000 “consideration”. But at the Same
Time THEY KNEW they would price with Bundles to $1.3, less $500k they stole with
a fake $100k/yr deductible, or $800,000+-
More proof? I entered into evidence a September 2003 CCT Management email, where they are discussing the 2002 Real Estate Book Bundle Revenue Share between Print & Internet Departments down to 1/10th of 1%..
The 2002 Bundle revenue (which CCT f ailed to account for and pay me for, have hidden from the courts, replaced with false financials), was allocated 88.6% to their Print Department and 11.4% to Internet Departrment. The “Increase” and “value” Internet Manager Kempf speaks of, is MY 1,000,000 visitors, 145 clients, top search engine placements and prime domain names).
So Here Print & Internet Managers, along with Ad Manager Evans, are arguing over exactly HOW Print & internet will split Bundle Revenue, subject to the secret 90/10 allocation policy.
Kinda makes you wonder how CCT had Bundles Counted to the dollar in 2002 @ 90%/10, but in Jan 2003 pretend to invent them and allocate 60% Print/40% Internet, when they knew they wouldn’t, had planned not to, didnt even NEED a Jan 2003 Plan, then September 2003 the entire company Management knows of 2002 Bundle revenue to the penny?
Yet they all go into court and win the case claiming they innocently hatched Bundles
on January 9, 2003. And get two courts, the Mass SJC and the Mass Bar to agree with
them.
I MEAN, I PRESENT THE COURT THIS 09/13/2003 CCT MANAGEMENT EMAIL TALKING ABOUT
2002 REAL ESTATE BUNDLE REVENUE -
This email that discusses CCT’s 2002 Real Estate Book Bundle Is from Internet Manager Kempf, and sent to Both Print Managers, and CCT Advertising Manager Molly Evans. Yet CCT has it’s lawyers go into Court and “substantiate” evidence that proves CCT had no thought of Bundling until after the p&s, January 9, 2003.
4 different Managers are fully away of the 2002 RE Bundle Revenue Results, they each
know the 2002 Bundle Split went according to the hidden 90%/10% Bundle Allocation
scam CCT simply failed to disclose. They EACH know the total revenue and in-
Since CCT will get 100% of ALL revenue, less that which they begrudgingly will have to pay me under the “contract”, these department Managers are effectively negotiation nothing more than HOW MUCH they will divert by allocating to print.
As if the sale with me and the agreement never took place. KINDA MAKES YOU WONDER HOW THEY ALL TOOK THE JANUARY 9, 2003 BUNDLE EMAIL PROPOSAL AS EVEN BEING SERIOUS. THEY ALL KNOW 90/10 IS “POLICY”. I would suggest the answer is they didnt. 2002 they have a 90/10 Bundle policy. Jan 2003 Internet Manager tells Print they get 60%, nobody says boo. Sept 2003, they are fighting over 1/10th of 1% Department Split? The Top Executives of CCT knew of 2002 Bundles to the dollar in 2002, and September 2003. But EACH forgot in Jan 2003?
LET ME REMIND YOU, AS YOU CONSIDER THE BELOW THE DEPTH OF DETAIL & KNOWLEDGE OF CCT’S 2002 REAL ESTATE INTERNET/BOOK BUNDLE, THAT CCT LAWYERS ARE ON THE RECORD TELLING THE COURTS THAT CCT DIDN’T “CONCEIVE”, “INTRODUCE”, ”PLAN”, “HATCH”, “DEVELOP”, “BEGAN” A BUNDLE STRATEGY UNTIL JAN 9, 2003, AFTER THE 02 SALE.
And the Barnstable 5/2/12 SJ Ruling found that CCT did not “Propose”, “Implement”, or even “Contemplate” Bundles until January 9, 2003. As my years old prior version of the breakdown noted (w/ video description), CCT Lawyers SWORE in SJ Memo that uncontested evidence proves January 9, 2003 is Authentic, and the Court agreed that meant CCT “Could Not” be guilty.
Can we agree that Cape Cod Times Could not have conceived of Bundles on January 9, 2003, since they plotted them for the sale, to the dollar, in 2002?
I Made Nutter McClennen & Fish admit the fatal flaw in the Jan 03 Defense when I
confronted them with the Smoking Gun on 6/14/11 in CCT SOF Reply #52 -
They
same day Another NM&F Lawyers Filed CCT’s SJ Memo saying, Falsely stating (some
17 times I list on False Statements Page), Bundles began in Jan 2003.
When you consider the Lawyers answer when confronted with evidence of CCT’s Bundle Plan, ask your self how a Court could possibly believe Jan 9, 2003
1. THE “SMOKING GUN” -
Together they prove the underlying conspiracy to defraud. While concealing the $1,3000,000 2002 Smoking Gun projection that accounts for their existing Bundles and Pricing “Policy” that they planned to employ for the deal, and will exclude 90% of all our revenues for the entire deal, they pretend to “invent” Bundles Jan 9, 03, suggest the split with be 60% to Print, 40% to Internet.
So January 9, 2003 pretends to be a new idea, when it’s not. So January 9, 2003 pretends CCT with allocate 60%/40%, when CCT ALONE knows they have a 90/10 Bundle allocation Policy. Ya, they pretended to create a new idea on Jan 9 2003, Bundles, when they actually had the entire sale priced with Bundles #90/10. Jan 9 is a projection they neither needed, not planned to use.
So once one realizes Jan 9, 2003 is a complete facade (courts dont), the REST of
the moves made by CCT come further into focus, and they are clearly part of a fraudulent
scheme to defraud.
The Smoking Gun Page breaks it down, but this wealthy company should
NOT have been afforded the Defense of Bundles being Conceived after the p&s, Jan
2003.
Remember, by Oct 17, 2002 CCT had Bundles calculated at 90/10 for this deal in that $1.3 Smoking Gun document by the start of 2002. A very detailed accounting using the real pricing they ended up using for the deal. Remember too, Evans, Kempf and Meyer, and all sales staff except Fontaine, and dozens of advertisers, know that CCT has been Bundling this very product for years.
Remember also the 3 executives obviously know they did NOT innocently conceive of Bundling for this deal on January 9, 2003. That was a complete act. And if the frauds try and claim ignorance instead of intentional fraud, we know Know they were sitting on this secret Smoking Gun Bundle Plan of $1.3 when they told me $4.3. Listen to Ad Manager Evans the FAKE $4.3 plan in 2010 Depo:
The 3 of them spent all this effort creating a false projection, one they didnt need since they had the real one, and didnt plan to use because they used the real one. (See Fake Projections Page).
To the right is the $4.3 projection they gave me in July 02 while sitting on the real $1.3 one. Notice they use just totals for my benefit, while Smoking Gun shows ads itemize by product. They couldnt give me the real one, Bundles and $1.3 would have made me walk, run, away. The 3 of them were willing to tell a $3,000,000 lie!
You dont think this was a scam? CCT gave me a $4.3 projection with July 02 Offer,
they were hiding the REAL plan with Bundles diverting 90% to Print that would be
$1,300,000 INSTEAD.
Everyone except Meyer @ CCT admits Bundles were in place before
January 9, 2003, in 2010 Deposition he says he DOESN'T KNOW WHICH year Bundles began.
But the Barnstable Court quotes an affidavit by Meyer saying they began “early 2003”
-
Meyer’s Advertising and Internet Manager admitted Bundle began BEFORE Jan 9, 2003. So when you see the extent the 3 went to in creating the FAKE $4,310,000 Projection, COMPLETELY ignoring 90/10 Bundles they would feign on Jan 9, 03, you have to wonder WHY one of them didnt have the character to Mention the Smoking Gun, they conspired on a 3 million dollar fraud!
8. CCT Mgt cant agree WHAT the Bundle Policy is! Let them explain to a Jury how CCT had a Policy before 2003 when they hatched Bundles Jan 2003?
Speaking of a Policy that according to CCT’s False Affidavits to the Courts Couldnt exist until AFTER they conceived of Bundles in January 2003 (demonstrably, admittedly Not True):
*If it WERE true, that means CCT unilaterally and arbitrarily decided 70 days after the sale to create revenue from the sale exclusively through selling “Bundles”, and THEN decided to MAKE a Policy that says “exclude 90% from Fontaine’s Sale Price”.
They intentionally created a revenue scheme that caused them to directly compete
with me for the entire contract. They get to keep 90% of EVERYTHING they call a Bundle.
And they did exactly that! Do you see any 60%/40% Split mentioned by Management -
BUNDLE POLICY -
If CCT had a 90/10 Bundle Policy
Before the sale, they fraudulently concealed it.
If CCT created a 90/10 Bundle Policy
After the sale, they fraudulently created it.
Hundt -
Evans -
*She also spoke in Depo about how hard her, Meyer and Kempf “poured over and over, messaged and messaged” the Fake $4,300,000 Projection, that ignored Bundles, ignored 90/10, as the 3 of them were sitting on the Smoking Gun, with 90/10 Bundles, and totaled only $1,300,000.
Meyer -
Kempf -
9. CCT continually used the threat of my Employment Contract, as a means of stifling my complaints and questions about their Bundle Scam.
As I mention in #8 above, after Internet Manager Kempf (who was the primary, yet not exclusive contact during a year of negotiations and due diligence) was promoted to Ottaway Newpspers, another division of Dow Jones, at the end of 2014, I still didnt know what the deal was with Bundles, what I was being paid for, or not. Kempf responded to my question asking if Bundle revenue was being included at that time (2 full years into the deal), and he says “yes, because it’s my feeling that they should be included”. Not too reassuring that his replacement will “feel” the same way. He didnt bother mention that CCT had a Policy that was diverting 90% of EVERYTHING from my sale price.
*Because they had hidden the $73,000 in 2002 Bundles when accounting for 2002 results in my payment made after 2002 was completed, in 2003 (which was required to be disclosed, and paid to me for 02 under the contract they just signed), and because they didnt identify Bundles in early 2004 for 2003 results, I literally didnt know HOW they were hiding $$$,$$$!
That brings us to CCT Controller Hudnt, who the Barnstable docket shows was made unavailable for deposition at the threat of sanctions. HE CERTAINLY WOULD KNOW THE REAL #S!
This 2016 Email (the LAST full year of the RS Deal) between Hundt and myself shows once again, that CCT was NOT being very forthcoming about this 90%/10% Bundle “Policy” they were using to calculate sale price under the 2002 P&S. CCT is Actually Rubbing My Nose in the fact CCT has the Right to Bundle as they choose, a right they stole by Altering the p&s.
*Of Course, I had already been hospitalized for work related stress by this point, and had filed a whistelblower complaint with parent Dow Jones claiming CCT was egregiously and internationally over stating website traffic to advertisers, in order to secure 6 figure contracts (I should note this was PRIOR to me learning CCT had done the EXACT same thing to me).
And so, as detailed on the Aug 2016 Certified I sent to NM&F, page 46, notes, the Guy counting the money for CCT, tells me what I already know, having built and sold them the dominant Internet Real Estate property on Cape Cod:
“The Majority of Cape Cod real estate offices are looking to expand their presence
on the web, not in print”.
So when Meyer says it was based on what the client perceived
it’s value, he had it backwards.
And when the Appeals Court held that “no provision prohibits CCTimes from bundling
print and internet advertising” I ask them to consider again October 8, where “expenses”
and “But Not Limited to” were removed from CCT, after a real good effort to sneak
them in -
THE COURT IS WEIGHING AN ALTERED P&S AND RULING PRECISELY AS CCT PLANNED BY ALTERING IT!
And when the Appeals Court Ruled on 12/23/13 (FN3) that “the record does not demonstrate
the the ninety percent / ten percent allocation of revenue did not reflect true value”
-
Consider the Appeals Courts Footnotes from the perspective of a pro-
FN2. CCT told the Court they were Bundling back to 2000, and also told the court they had “NO revenue to speak of”. I was dominant, they were failing, and every employee, advertiser and CCT itself knew it was true. Were they going to PRINT $100K/YR?
Yet CCT Predicted MY Business Could do $4,300,000 over the next 4.5 years. Yet CCT Predicted MY Business w help them sell $530,000 in Bundles over 4.5 years.
FN3. MY INSISTANCE THAT CCT FAILED TO MENTION BUNDLES THEY WERE PLOTTING WAS MISPLACED? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
July 2002 I ask CCT about anything (Like Bundles) will effect the deal, they conceal Bundles, $530,000 of them the Smoking Gun proves. THEY expected to close in Aug.
October 16, 2002, I ask AGAIN, and instead of disclosing the Bundle Plan they are
hiding, they agree to remove “but not limited to” -
Then THIS Court as Barnstable before it, Mass SJC and Mass Bar after it, allowed CCT to Plant January 9, 2003 as an absolute defense. THE COURT WAS FOOLED, I WASN'T!
Bonus. Since his lawyers & executives admitted 2002 Bundles, exactly WHAT did CCT
Publisher & President Meyer say regarding when Bundles Began?
HE HAD TWO DIFFERENT
ANSWERS, AND NEITHER ONE OF THEM IS PROVEN CORRECT!
As shown on yet another website I created years ago, in attempting to expose this
disgusting fraud to the courts, losing absolutely every meaningful ruling the entire
way, Corporate Designee Meyer came to deposition claiming NOT TO KNOW which year
Bundles Began. His Ad Manager and Internet Managers had BOTH stated Bundlers were
in Place in 2002, but Meyer SOMEHOW doesn't know?…. But he’d REALLY like to try and
say 2003 -
Can someone tell me again WHO in the company stated that January 9, 2003 is when they began Bundling? Other than lawyers, and Judges?
But as with everything that has to do with this criminal enterprise, companies paying lawyers to lie to judges for legals fees and corporate (and personal) profits, Meyer had a DIFFERENT version of events as well.
Because the Barnstable Court in it’s 5/2/13 SJ Ruling stated "In his affidavit, Meyer states that such product bundling began in "early 2003".
THINK ABOUT IT! I’ve given the court virtually countless items of evidence proving January 9, 2003 Bundle Proposal is wholly specious. And on Aug 23, 2010 Meyer doesn’t know which year Bundles began, everyone else says BEFORE 2003. And Nutter Lawyers were in Kempf & Evans Depositions.
So On August 23, 2010, EVERYONE who knows, and ALL the evidence belonging to CCT itself, shows Bundles in place LONG before January 9, 2003, and Meyer DOESNT KNOW, yet he and Nutter go back, with access to the REAL records, the ACTUAL Financials, and on February 2, 2011, SIX MONTHS LATER, sign CCT’S SJ Memo claiming, DEMANDING, that CCT’s “Conceived” of Bundles on January 9, 2003.
The client and the law firm went back, looked at the records I’ve described herein, and gave the Court the WRONG answer. Meyer’s memory must have gotten better in time, because he went from NOT knowing which year, to filing a sworn affidavit, and allowed the lawyers to file false affidavits, claiming the absolute defense of the preposterous January 9, 2003 Bundle Evidence.
I call it evidence, because it is evidence of a 7 figure conspiracy to commit fraud, and blatant litigation misconduct by two esteemed law firms. At the PROFOUND and PROLONGED expense of me and my family. And they went into court of law and called me a greedy liar! And the court allowed it.
10. I offered Independent evidence to the Court that CCT was ACTIVELY Marketing Real
Estate Book/Internet Bundles in July 2002 (See Live Page).
Archive.org has Forever
Captured CCT marketing this RE Bundle in July 2002, the SAME month they made me the
Offer w $1.4 Projection, while sitting on the $1.3 Smoking Gun w Bundles!
Makes you wonder HOW 3 Courts and the Mass Bar, since 2007 litigation, allowed CCT Management, Dow Jones and Atty Langhoff, News Corp, Gatehouse Media, Closing attorney Dalton, Nutter McClennen & Fish and Holland & Knight, LLC, to STEAL over $1,000,000 from my family, based on a defense they innocently conceived of Bundles 70 days after the p&s, January 9, 2003?
CAN ANYONE STILL BELIEVE THAT CCT HATCHED BUNDLES ON JAN 9, 2003?
*Do you know how
illegal it was for them to hide $73,000 in 2002 Bundle Revenue in discovery?
Archive.org not only shows us that CCT was selling Bundles in the middle of 2002 negotiations, but also shows us THEIR MOTIVE IN DOING SO, AND IN CONCEALING IT FROM ME, AND NOW THE COURTS!
Because they knew they had gone years with this “Bundle” failing, they GAVE away
a measly 10,000 copies for each of the 3-
BEFORE the sale they cant sell it at $225 for a whole page (This Bundle they conceive
in 2003).
Immediately AFTER the sale they get $405 for a page. AND know they will
hide 90% of that from me!
AND they are acquiring MY valuable Business in the process.
2000/2002 Promo for the RE Book Bundle
Prior to the sale, they market it as advertiser
gets "online at no added charge" Pre-
2003/2004 Promo for the Rental Book Bundle
Post Sale -
CCT Fact 51 is a sham!
It wasnt “introductory”, it wasnt to attract MORE internet business. They had planned to give 90% to Print!
It was all a scam so CCT could retain 90% Revenue!
In fact, to the Right we see Archive.org has captured CCT Advertising Bundles all the way back to 2002. NOT January 9, 2003!
Let me end this by saying that 1-
CCT Internet Manager Kempf created the 2002 Smoking Gun w Bundles , yet authored
Jan 9, 2003 @ 60/40 split, for show. Said Bundles went back to 2000. Didn't invent
Bundle Jan 9, 2003.
CCT Ad Manager Evans says she, Meyer & Kempf “messaged” the $4.3
million projection given me, yet went along with Jan 9 @60/40, ignored the $1.3 REAL
Plan. Admits 02 Bundles.
CCT President Meyer, he was “massaging” the price of my business
along with Evans and Kempf. Says in 2010 depo he d/n know when Bundles began, then
said “early 2003” But it’s false.
CCT Parent CEO, Down Jones attorney Langhoff, was
given the real $1.3 Plan for DJ to measure the deal, yet I was given $4.3 instead.
Langhoff left News Corp due to a circulation scam.
CCT closing attorney listed on
the p&s, which I identified was altered between Oct 16, 02 and the Oct 31, 02 signing,
had his license suspended by the Mass Bar.
CCT employed a series of intertwined, calculated, and fraudulent deceptions in order to defraud me out of my dominant Internet Advertising business in 2002. The video to right details in order 10 different Items of record evidence I cite below.
CCT CONSPIRED TO CONCEAL BUNDLES UNTIL AFTER THE 02 P&S. JAN 9, 03 EVIDENCE IS FAKE.
IT’S OBVIOUS. LAWYERS LIED.
JAN 9, 03 IS IMPOSSIBLE. CCT’S EXECUTIVES ADMITTED IT,
CCT’S RECORDS CONFIRM IT. ONLY LAWYERS CLAIMED JAN 03 IS REAL.
NONE of the 4 CCT executives called for 2010 depositions even claimed Bundles began in 2003. Internet Manger Kempf said 2000, Ad Manager Evans said 2002, President Meyer “did not know”, Controller Hundt was made unavailable by CCT, under threat of sanctions.
The Courts trusted the lawyers, found CCT innocent “could not” be guilty, based primarily
on the planted Jan 9, 2003 Bundle defense.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL OR WEAR
A ROBE TO SEE THAT JANUARY 9, 03 IS A SHAM. JUST LOOK AT THE RECORD!
This Bundle was plotted by CCT to deceive me 70 days after the p&s, pretending to invent a new idea to help the sale, Bundles. But the evidence makes it obvious that this January 9, 03 Bundle Proposal was nothing more than an attempt by CCT to deceive me into thinking they had JUST thought up a great way to help our Revenue Share based sale generate revenue.
When in fact, it was the EXACT opposite. It was a way to divert 90% of ALL the revenue we would generate, to their Print Department. Because, guess what, a YEAR After the sale, CCT informs me they have a Bundle “Policy” that REQUIRES 90% of all revenues earned through Bundling advertising, to be allocated to their Print Department, excluded from sale price. $3,000,000 worth.
Multiple items of evidence that establish CCT’s conspiracy to commit the underlying fraud, as well as a Brazen Fraud Upon The Court(s):