AnatomyofaFraud.com
Oct 16, Altered P&S!
*They ALL knew of Bundles back in 2001 when making the Smoking Gun, calculating Real
Estate Book Bundles to the dollar for 2002-
Yet here they have made no mention of Bundles or 90/10 Policy.
They try to keep “expenses” and “but not limited to” into the p&s, until I force
then to STATE on p&s ANYTHING that will effect net.
SO YOU KNOW WHAT THE 3 OF THEM DID?
They agreed to remove Expenses and But Not Limited to, INSTEAD of disclosing the $1.3 Bundle Plan they themselves had created, having given me a $4.3 projection. They will conceive of Bundles on Jan 2003 instead. They would have to hide from me then, and the Courts today, the $73,000 in 2002 Bundle Revenue they admit on SOF 52. EACH OF THE 3 OF THEM HAVE TO AGREE TO THIS.
As Exh 13 shows, they actually removed “But Not Limited To”, removed in the draft p&s in that email attachment, and the issue was never discussed again. 2 weeks later we close at CCT’s Offices, no lawyers present. And we began the deal. They pretend to invent Bundles on Jan 9, 03, in 2004 they start talking about a Bundle “Policy”, and the deception continued.
ONLY DEEP INTO LITIGATION do I realize that “But Not Limited To” was surreptitiously inserted back into the p&s they had me sign. As they argued the p&s didnt limited them from Bundling.
So instead of ANYONE OF THEM SIMPLY BEING HONEST, ADHERING TO THE LAW, AND disclosing the Bundles and the 90/10 Bundle policy, they concealed both, agreed to remove the terms that they alone knew, ALL 3 OF THEM, that would allow them to Bundle, they added the term back in the p&s we signed Oct 31, they pretended to invent Bundles Jan 9, 03, they changed Billing Codes to hide $73,000 in 2002 Bundles from me, they failed pay me for the Bundles as required by the p&s.
And then went into Court and had their lawyers defend the case based on the terms
of a contract term they had reluctantly conceded, but had stolen back by Altering
the p&s.
And they allowed Barnstable Superior Court, Mass Appeals Court and the Mass
SJC, to rely on Record Evidence that claims January 9, 2003 CCT innocently “hatched”
Bundles.
I spent years building this business from scratch to market dominance, I went to my local newspaper in good faith. I didn't come across a single exec or lawyer who had an ounce of ethics.
As you consider the exchange 2 weeks prior to p&s, remember atty Mitchell @ H&K told the Court The Smoking Gun, with Bundles “More fundamentally, the “Real Estate Merger Analysis” was fully disclosed and provided to Fontaine during the negotiation. Therefore, Fontaine’s argument that information contained in this document was somehow hidden from his is specious”.
So CCT and Mitchell is INFORMING the Courts that CCT had given me the $1.3 Plan with
Bundles before the p&s, as if the $4,300,000 they admit giving me with the July Offer
never happened.
So why do we see no mention of Bundles in this Oct 16 exchange? No
mention of 90/10? No exchange between Fontaine and CCT about a $3,000,000 discrepancy.
The term “Bundle” nowhere?
MORE IMPORTANTLY, why is this hot shot attorney, and the Firm before him, arguing
to a Court CCT disclosed Bundles in 2002, when he WON the case swearing they conceived
them in 2003?
Not to mention the Barnstable Ruling noted Bundles weren’t mentioned
prior to the sale, and were 1st contemplated in Jan 2003. CCT got EVERY break. “SPECIOUS”
Matt?
October 16, 2002. Fontaine Exh #13. Additional Key Aspects of CCT’s complex Conspiracy to Commit Fraud.
CCT left a trail of evidence that, in retrospect, identifies each and every element of their ongoing scheme to fraudulently obtain my business. And few are them are more telling than Oct 16, 2002. This is 2 months after CCT’s draft p&s expected to have closed in August.
I will establish that CCT, as they had with the $4.3 Projection, and the Jan 9, 03 Bundle invention, used several tools to employ this scam.
On October 16/17, long after the expected Aug closing, I was STILL pleading with CCT to disclose anything out of the ordinary that would impact the Revenue Share. But instead of disclosing the $530,000 in Smoking Gun Bundles they were sitting on, 90% they know they will divert to their Print Dept, excluded from sale price, or specifically listing ANYTHING that would so effect the split, THEY CHOSE FRAUD.
Let me point out what this exchange, this evidence sitting in the Court of the Commonwealth tells us:
ASK YOURSELVES WHY MEYER, EVANS AND KEMPF DIDNT SIMPLY JUST EXPLAIN TO ME, AS I DID
MY DUE DILIGENCE, THEY HAD AN ADVERTISING PRODUCT “BUNDLES”, which they had already
priced into the sale (RE MERGER-
Kempf said Bundles went back to at least 2000, Evans admitted they were in place DURING 2002, Meyer said he didnt know which year, AND ALSO said “early 2003’ (The Planted Jan 2003 Evidence). It’s actually kinda funny, if not so sad, but Meyer had JUST become Publisher of CCT on September 6, 2001. One month later we began negotiations, and the trail of deception begins.
“Before joining the Times 15 years ago, Meyer was an executive with Dow Jones Company at facilities in Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and California. He is a graduate of Western Michigan Universit (CCT typo, naturally) is enrolled in the Suffolk University MBA program”. And a Court allowed him to generally suggest CCT innocently, coincidentally, “conceived” of Bundles Jan 9, 2003. Sure.
If ANY of the 4 Judges whose Rulings rely on the planted January 9, 2003 Bundle evidence
realized it is a Complete Sham, they would see OCT 16/17 for what it is.
The Courts
were UNABLE to view this other, corroborating evidence of the fraud, because it appears
irrelevant if January 2003 is legitimate.
It is ABSURD that I have the Smoking Gun
document atop my Appellate Reply Brief, counting 2002 Bundles, and that court too
ruled “after the p&s” CCT Began Bundling.
So ask yourself during this exchange, with what we now know about the 2002 Bundle
Plan, the admissions of Bundles back to 2002, was this Good Faith & Fair Dealing?
And
why every attorney on their side seems to have issues with ethics, and the law?
I just cant believe that Meyer let attorneys file that 2011 SJ Memo swearing to the January 9 Evidence. Or that NM&F went along. Or that H&K went along. It’s actually very sad.
*October 16, 2002 -
The October 31, 2002 signed, legal, p&s on the left.
The October 16, 2002 with “but
not Limited to” conceded on the right.
THE ONLY ONES WHO KNEW THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
THE TERM, SNUCK IN BACK IN.
SINCE THEY WOULD NEED IT TO EMPLOY THE JANUARY 9, 2003
BUNDLE ELEMENT OF THEIR SCHEME.
Key Point about “discounts” listed in (Iii) of the p&s, which CCT itself solely
drafted and choose terminology, relevant to their business:
*You need to remember,
I could NEVER had fathomed that ALL of them were being deceptive, never mind any
of them. Court made the same mistake with Lawyers.
The REASON they include that within this scam, was they KNEW they had (or were going to claim) a 90%/10% Bundle allocation “Policy”.
They KNEW they wanted to “discount” the Package of my Valuable website traffic, with
their failing print hand-
Hindsight and logic tells us THAT was the “discount” they were attempting to sneak through, a $3,000,000 lie.
THEY KNEW there was no other material aspect of the sale which “discounts” would pertain to.
This is further evidenced with the January 9, 2003 Staged conception of Bundles, as They pretend a 60/40 split, when they themselves created the 90/10 Policy they would use for the entire sale, and sell to the courts as legitimate.
In that Proposal by top CCT Management, The Internet Manager proposes reducing Internet
Rates by 57%, to help sell the Bundle.
Print offers NOTHING… yet they increase the
price of the Bundle from $225 in 2002, to $405 in 2003 -
And Meyer stated, according to Barnstable Ruling, CCT began Bundles “in early 2003”, and Meyer states they did so to increase “Internet” revenue. Sure!
CCT WANTED TO BE ABLE TO “DISCOUNT” 90% OF ALL REVENUE, THESE PARTNERS OF MINE, AND NOT BE “LIMITED” IN HOW THEY DID IT.
So they stole the right.
And the Courts allowed it.
*Here is a cute little article on the CCT, about their Lawyer Dalton, listed on the p&s itself, having his license taken by the Mass Bar, for filing false documents with a court of law. So.
