AnatomyofaFraud.com
litigation History
Litigation History:
Key Filings:
2007 -
Barnstable Superior Court Summary Judgement Ruling, Honorable Judge Nickerson. May
2, 2012. Accepting the false statements of the SJ Memo.
Cape Cod Times Memorandum
in Support of Summary Judgement. Signed 2/1/11, Filed 6/14/11. By Nutter McClennen
& Fish, Attorney Sarah Manning.
Fontaine’s Court Exhibits, containing key evidentiary
documents and evidence.
Appeals Court of Massachusets Rule 1:28 Decision in Cape Cod Times favor, accepting
the false statement of the SJ Memo, and sustaining the opinion of the Barnstable
Court before it.
The Masachusetts Appeals Court case docket.
Fontaines’s Pro Se 2013
Appeals Court Opening Brief.
Fontaine’s Pro Se 2013 Appeals Court Reply Brief (Note
CCT own 2002 “Bundle” document posted at the top, yet the Court ruled CCT didnt conceive
of Bundles until after the 2002 p&s).
Fontaine’s 2014 Motion For Rehearing with the
Mass Appeals Court.
Massachusetts SJC Docket. 2014.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court, Fontaine Application for Further Appellate Review.
Fontaine’s 2014 Rule 60b Barnstable Superior Court Motion (partial) claiming Fraud
Upon the Court by Both Nutter McClennen & Fish and Successor Counsel Holland & Knight,
LLC.
Fontaine’s 2nd Rule 60b Motion in Barnstable Superior Court, claiming fraud upon
the Court.
2014 Complaint to Mass Office of Bar Counsel. Partial, appeal of this was also denied.
The Office refused to Investigate -
2016 Certified to Attorney Sarah Manning, reminded of her false affidavits, informing her of Holland & Knight False affidavits, her duty to correct. They sent the cops to my house instead.
Fontaine’s story -
Second Version, with corresponding
video.
Fontaine’s story -
Litigation Timeline from This Motion I filed to enlighten the Court, I cant even remember which one.
In 2007 Fontaine filed suit in US District Court, Boston, seeking $1,000,000 in damages, claiming diversity of the parties, CCT being a Division of Dow Jones, a Delaware Corporation, headquartered in New York. CCT claimed autonomy from the parent corporation, and the filing was withdrawn without prejudice.
Fontaine filed suit in Barnstable Superior on Sept 2, 2008. Months later CCT would transfer ALL the domain assets Fontaine had sought in rescission of the sale, to Dow Jones, the parent corporation, allowing many to simply expire, spoil, usurping the will of the Courts, as the matter had yet to be litigated. So arrogant CCT and its lawyers, the will, the authority of Court, wasn’t even on their radar.
Fontaine would fight the local newspaper and its powerful ownership, respected local executives, globally respected law firms, in their own back yard. He would never enter a courtroom.
In the following 8+ years of litigation, CCT has been acquired by two new corporate media giants, and was no longer the same legal entity it had been when Fontaine filed suit. So complicated and convoluted was the actual ownership train, that on 10/7/13, pro se Fontaine had to file a Rule 1:21 Motion requesting the Court compel CCT to file their required Corporate Disclosure Statements, ALLOWED on 10/8/13 (Appeal Docket #20). It took revolving Counsel until 10/16/13 to Identify their revolving client.
Pro se Fontaine had to file a Motion just to know on whose behalf Counsel was lying, because News Corp lawyers (and the Court) failed to follow the law.
On Sept 2, 2008 Fontaine filed suit in Barnstable Superior Court, claiming Mass 93a violations including fraudulent inducement and unfair business practices, breach of contract and other causes of action. He sought recession of the fraudulent 10/31/02 transaction, return of his domain assets, and damages.
On May 2, 2012, the Barnstable Court issued a 16 page Dismissal Order, granting Summary Judgment to CCT. Fully HALF of the pages in the decision refer to the “fact” CCT Conceived of “Bundling” advertising in “early 2003”, “After” the 2002 p&s. This key holding is completely erroneous, as the record shows, and CCT Counsel has since been forced to admit.
On July 10, 2012, Fontaine, through counsel, timely filed appeal in Massachusetts Court of Appeals. His Counsel was allowed to withdraw his representation 7 days later, Appeal Docket #2. Fontaine received 7+ feet of case records, 5 years into litigation, and used every resource at his disposal to file his Brief.
On December 23, 2013, the Appeals Court affirmed the Barnstable Decision, erroneously holding that CCT’s “Bundles Began in early 2003”, hence they couldn’t have been withheld from Fontaine in 2002.
On Jan 2, 2014 Fontaine petitioned the Appeals Court for a Re-
On Jan 10, 2014 Fontaine petitioned the Supreme Judicial Court for Further Appellate Review. Denied.
In 2014, Fontaine filed TWO (2) Rule 60b Motions with the Barnstable Court, claiming Fraud upon the Court by CCT’s lawyers. Both of those Motions were Denied.
Counsel’s response to that 2nd Motion included its own “Motion Seeking Protection” from Fontaine. That document, attached for reference, was replete with the very same factual falsities that Counsel has been selling the courts for years. Except when they were forced to concede them to be untrue, and proceeded to defend them anyway.
Several lawyers have multiple self-
Must have been 2015 I filed a complaint with Mass Bar Counsel, and the sought a reconsideration
when that was denied, as was the reconsideration request.
They refused to return my
original case documents. They charged me $.25 per copy in the Clerks Office, and
I had sent 300+-
Take Note that while I sought rescission of the sale and return of my domain name assets, CCT argued in 2007 US First Circuit that they were autonomous from parent Dow Jones, a Delaware Corporation. I claimed diversity, a Massachusetts Resident V a Delaware Corporation. My lawyer at the time told me the Court was indicating they may rule in CCT;s favor, so we removed without prejudice, and refilled in Barnstable Superior in 2008.
Soon thereafter, CCT transferred the domain name assets, to the Parent Company they had just claimed autonomy from, assets that were subject to my law suit, effectively placing them out of my reach and that of the court. I believe I filed a Temporary Restraining Order to stop that transaction (imagine, both that I’d file one, have to file one, and dont even remember if I did, in the blur of it all). I believe it was denied.
The Appeals Court Docket will show I had to file another pro se Motion, asking CCT to simply Identify WHO they were owned by, as the went from a Division of Ottaway newspapers, a Dow Jones Company, to wholly owned by News Corp, to Wholly owned by Gatehouse Media.
Motion Accepted, the Court tells the lawyers for News Corp they will Add the newly filed Corporate Disclosure Statement to the record, as a Courtesy. How nice.
US 1ST Curcuit Justia Record 2007 -
