AnatomyofaFraud.com
Fontaine V CCT -
THE SMOKING GUN PROVES JANUARY 9, 2003 IS FAKE -
problem with CCT inventing “Bundles” in January 2003 is that The Internet has captured
them Marketing Bundles in July-
*Yet CCT did not account for a single Penny of 2002 Bundle revenue when paying me
under the p&s, too busy pretending Bundles were invented AFTER the sale, January
9, 2003.
*CCT failed to account for a penny in 2002 Bundle revenue in the financial
statement the Courts relied upon in finding them innocent of Hiding Bundles.
These Crooks not only conspired to Hide that 2002 Bundle revenue, to trick me, they
have done the exact same thing to two courts.
The are clearly absolutely Guilty of
Contract Fraud, Breach of Contract, and Fraud Upon The Courts. THEY HAD TO HIDE
ALL PRE-
7 years arguing that CCT planned Bundles before Jan 9 03, and lawyers continue to defend it. To the right is one of many affidavits I presented the Court proving Jan 9. 03 is Impossible.
CCT’S 90%/10% “BUNDLE POLICY” WAS FAKE!
It’s worth pointing out, for perhaps my 2,000th time, that 90% Bundle “Policy” was a primary component of the underlying conspiracy to defraud me. What Policy?
The ENTIRE scam revolved around them being able divert 90% from sale price.
Bundles was Obviously an element of this sale I should have been informed of, when
I asked -
The term “Bundle” is 1st seen by me on January 9, 03. After a year of due diligence.
I
have signatures by 4 Judges from 2 Courts that rely on Jan 9 in finding CCT innocent.
THEY KNEW, they HAD to have the right to Bundle, since they planned to invent them after the p&s, which they did 70 days after, on Jan 9. Without that they couldn’t claim this innocent 90/10 policy.
But as The Aug 2016 Journal pointed out to NM&F, as seen to the right, this so called “Policy” is defined by something different, by every, stinking, one of them.
Funny the 2002 Smoking Gun shows the actual pricing plan, with Bundles, 90% allocated to Print by Policy. Yet the Jan 9 2003 Bundle suggests 60/40, and every one is good with it?
REMEMBER, THESE ARE TOP EXECUTIVES WHO DEVELOPED THE POLICY. IT’S THEIR POLICY.
And then somehow didnt conceive of Bundles, after all those years in the business, until Bob Fontaine.
Both Barnstable and Mitchell are clear, Bundles were never mentioned during negotiations.
SO
HOW IS IT THIS CCT HAS A POLICY THAT DIVERTS 90% OF SALE PRICE, AND NOT DISCLOSE
IT?
How much does it take to understand they had the 2002 Bundle Plan, and are caught red handed stealing my business and lying to several courts of law? REALLY?
ANY ONE OF THE 10+-
-
-
January 9, 2003, as I explained to NM&F in the Aug 2016 Letter:
*Meyer tells the court CCT began these Bundles to help Internet earn more revenue, But Kempf takes 57% off Internet Rates for the Bundle, Print not a Cent. Here already counted $53,000 w be allocated to Internet for the entire Deal.
THEY ALL KNOW, this is in-
$4,310,000 the honest way would send 20% to Fontaine, $860,000.
But $4.3 sliced 90/10
into $430,000, 20% to Fontaine would be $86,000.
“Prepare the Sales Staff”, 70 days after p&s they are ready To Sell Bundles, AGAIN. They will never again mention 60/40, a year later they claim 90/10 Policy.
January 9, 2003 -
Consider the May 3, 2012 Barnstable Superior Court Summary Judgment Ruling “the record does not support Plaintiff’s allegation that CCT executives had discussed or implemented bundled advertising until 2002. To the contrary, the record reflects that Robert Kempf did not propose the concept until January 2003:..”. (Court meant 2002, the relevant period in question).
CCT’s Ad Manager & Internet Managers both admitted 2002 Bundles. The Barnstable court doesn't think CCT had even “contemplated” Bundle Advertising until this January 9, 2003 “Evidence”.
YET NM&F Answer to CCT SOF Reply #52, June 14, 2011, when confronted with CCT’s secret
2002 Plan to Bundle -
Plaintiff's Response 52: “The document "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 52: “CCT does not dispute Plaintiff's Response 52". THE LAWYER FORCED TO CCT’S ADMIT GUILT! CCT EXPECTED 02 BUNDLE REVENUE THEY CLAIM TO INVENT IN 2003.
Quite an admission of CCT’s Guilt by NM&F, since CCT’s SJ Memo, also filed on 6/14/11,
told the same court “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" -
Cape Cod Times January 9, 2003 “Bundle Proposal” is completely Fake. Didnt’ need
it. Didn’t plan to use it.
Just an act to introduce Bundles they were hiding in 2002,
to divert 90% of $4,310,000 they projected, from MY sale price.
CCT’S January 9, 2003 Bundle Proposal (Font Exh #19) is not evidence of CCT’s absolute innocence, as the Courts have all held, it is direct and indisputable evidence of their conspiracy to commit fraud in the purchase of my CapeCodRealEstate.com advertising portal in 2002.
Consider, the Smoking Gun and all other sources on the Evidence page establishes
that CCT had this entire sale pre-
This Planted Document that 2 courts have ruled is legitimate, providing CCT an absolute defense, is PROVEN to be nothing more than fraud! THESE PEOPLE CONCEALED BUNDLES IN 02 AND PRETENDED TO INVENT THEM 70 DAYS AFTER P&S IN 03!
THINK OF WHAT THIS JAN 9, 2003 BUNDLE “PROPOSAL” WAS ALL ABOUT! WHY THEY ARE DOING
IT! CCT BUNDLED TO HELP THE DEAL?
1. They discount the Internet Rate by 57% (6) -
3. Charge $360 a page (5). When Top 10 Page (bottom)
shows in 2002 they charged $225, and it was failing, SAME page shows they actually
ended up charging $405 a page.
4. They claim a 60/40 Split but prevailed claiming
a 90/10 Policy. 5. They didn't plan to implement this proposal, they already planned
90/10, and NOT to help Internet sales.
*The 2002 Smoking Gun and CCT Reply #52 establish CCT expected $73,000 in 2002 Bundle
Revenue, WITHIN THIS DEAL. The entire 4 year deal with Bundles.
* CCT Lawyers Convinced
several Courts that CCT had a “Bundle Policy” in place, so it Ruled it logical CCT
allocating 90% to costly Print Department made sense.
* Below, I entered into evidence,
8 months after the January 9 2003 Facade, CCT top Management is discussing those
2002 Bundles to 1/10th of 1% accuracy. ALL of them.
So WHY is CCT wasting their time on January 9, 2003 inventing Bundles that propose 40% go to Internet (my sale price), when they already planned their Bundles for the entire sale in 2002, using the REAL 90%/10% Bundle Allocation Policy? A Bundle they DIDNT just invent, went AGAINST Policy, NEVER used, and NEVER PLANNED TO USE?
So in September 2003, Print & Internet Department are fighting over how to split
the money that had stolen from me in the January scam.
They ALL know 2002 Bundle Revenue
to the DOLLAR, yet they won this case by convincing the courts they innocently conceived
of Bundles “AFTER” the p&s, Jan 2003!
What they are doing is making the “Book Bundle” attractive to Realtor Advertisers who will buy because of my valuable Internet Traffic, by effectively giving away the Internet Portion. The Realtor dont care about CCT Internal Revenue allocation, but by pushing this Bundle they can keep 90% of all Revenue, by diverting it from me.