AnatomyofaFraud.com
FALSE AFFIDAVITS

CCT concealed plans to “Bundle” advertising during the full year of negotiations and mutual due diligence leading up to the October 31, 2002 sale, a 2002-2006 Revenue Share Deal, so they could pretend to invent Bundles “AFTER the contract was executed” (NM&F 2/1/11 SJ Memo), so they could THEN claim AFTER I signed the p&s, a Bundle “Policy” that would divert 90% of ALL Revenues we would generate, to their Print Department, Excluding it from sale price. A right they could claim Because they had altered the P&S signed Oct 31, 2002, by reinserting “But Not Limited To” language they had JUST agreed to remove Oct 16, 2002.

When Smoking Gun shows they knew Bundles would divert 90% of all revenues through a similarly concealed Bundle Policy, and would result in $1,300,000 in expected Revenue Share Eligible revenues.
Instead, they gave me a Projection of $4,310,000, then 70 days After the p&s they pretended to invent Bundles, Jan 9, 03.This is a THREE MILLION DOLLAR LIE.

Before I identify the specific location on the record where CCT make false and misleading representations to both courts, unequivocally vouching for the Jan 9, 03 Defense, I want to make clear that NOBODY from CCT had told the lawyers Bundles began January 9, 2003. CCT Management, while having no problem deceiving me, was wise enough not to perjure themselves, well except for President Meyer, he is on record saying he “does not know” which year Bundles began (8/23/10 Depo - E Below), Yet Barnstable SJ Ruling says a Meyer affidavit says “early 2003”. Which is false. BOTH are false.

So, someone care to explain how  the lawyers swore to the Court that CCT innocently thought up Bundles “AFTER” the 2002 p&s, in January 9, 2003?
*Each of the A-f Below are described in full detail as to it’s pertinence to the underlying fraud and litigation misconduct, on the Chronology of the Complex Scam Page.

FIRST, RECORD EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTS, EMAILS AND AFFIDAVITS OF CCT & COUNSEL ESTABLISH THAT CCT DID NOT “CONCEIVE OF BUNDLES” AFTER THE 2002 P&S, ON JAN 9, 2003:

A. Is the Smoking Gun, it counted $530,000 in Bundles, for this sale, during 02 negotiations, discounted at 90% to Print,10% to Internet, to be included in sale price (w/b 100% if CCT didnt alter p&s).
B. NM&F lawyers was forced to admit the obvious, the Smoking Gun established that CCT had Bundles counted for every year of the deal, including full year 2002. So what is Jan 9, 2003?
C. Internet Manager Kempf admitted 3/2/10 that CCT’s Bundles were in place going back at least 2000. Yet this bum concocted Jan 9, 03 Bundle suggesting a 60%/40% Split, No Policy Mentioned.
D. Ad Manager Molly Evans admits on 8/24/10 that CCT’s Bundles were in place during year 2002. She is party to the Jan 9, 03 Bundle, she wasnt surprised at the 60%/40% Split. She knows its fake.
E. President Meyer claimed on Aug 23, 2010 (Day before his Ad Manager had admitted 2002 Bundles), that he didnt know which year they began. But he let NM&F say Jan 03 in 2/1/11 SJ Memo.
F. 11 months after the p&s, 8 months after the Planted January 9, 2003 Bundle proposal, ALL CCT Managers are discussing among themselves the 2002 Bundle revenue split between them, to the penny.

Since the lawyers counseled the CCT Executives in each deposition, and had access to the REAL CCT records, the TRUE Financials (showing $73,000 in 02 Bundle revenue the court doesn’t know about Still), one has to wonder on WHAT evidentiary basis they had the audacity, to tell the Courts CCT hatched Bundles on January 9, 2003. But they did. I identify 17 specific times they did just that, below.

Considering January 9, 2003 is proven, shown, admitted and Documented to be a completely frivolous and fraudulent defense, perhaps Nutter McClennen & Fish, Holland and Knight, CCT Management and the three successive ownership groups, can explain why the Barnstable Superior Court 5/2/12 Summary Judgments Ruling, which can only by law be Granted when the lawyers provide the Court with evidence they have PERSONALLY verified as being wholly factual and valid evidence, Thinks CCT thought up Bundles out of the blue, AFTER the p&s, on January 9, 2003?

In a skimpy 16 page Ruling, (after 4+ years of expensive litigation), including cover and signature pages, the Barnstable Court  was SOOOO impressed with January 9, 2003,  Barnstable made reference to the January 2003 “AFTER” the p&s Bundle Invention, no less than 9 different times. The Court relied on January  because the lawyers backed Fake, Planted Evidence, and perjured themselves, repeatedly.

“An attorney owes his first duty to the court. He assumed his obligation toward it before he ever had a client.”

The False Statements signed by experienced counsel for two elite law firms, on behalf of the wealthy corporations, are numerous and obvious.
The company and the lawyers conspired to deceive the Courts of Massachusetts, in a brazen fraud upon the court. They could have settled for less than they paid in legal fees for lawyers to lie. I tried telling them that for years.

While this was a complex crime, and the lawyers literally contradicted themselves, co-counsel, successor counsel, their own client and their client’s Smoking Gun Evidence, The Facts, and therefore the Truth, is actually easy to ascertain. It’s only this confusing because the lawyers needed to confuse the court, then alter “facts” as I would point out the flaw in their false assertions, under oath.

I don't believe the Courts got Jan 9 03 wrong intentionally. I believe if they see that lawyers lied to them they would administer justice!

The Above are excerpts from August 2016 Cert Letter I sent to NM&F Attorney Manning, asking her to correct her false statements (Instead, the firm with the retired Barnstable Judge, sent the PD to my home).

Other Conspicuous False & Conflicting Statements by CCT Re Jan 9, 03 Bundle:

CCT President & Publisher Peter Meyer:
Aug 2010 Deposition he answer that he “actually dont know” what year CCT’s Bundle began.
May 2012 SJ Ruling “in his affidavit, Meyer says that such product Bundling began in early 2003”.

Since we know through myriad of evidence and  other CCT affidavits that CCT’s Bundles went back to at least 2000 (Kempf, Evans depos), Meyer’s Deposition is not truthful, NOR is his affidavit.

Nutter McClennen & Fish attorney Manning signs CCT SJ Memo on Feb 1, 2011.
6 months after Kempf and Evans admitted that CCT had Bundling in place in 2002, Before the p&s, and Meyer “did not know - could not say” which year they began, Meyer allowed Manning to vigorously and repeatedly assert that Bundles were “conceived on January 9, 2003.

A false exculpatory statement (also called an “inculpatory” statement) is admissible at trial as evidence of the defendant's consciousness of guilt.

The False Statements:
*It is not lost on me, it has never been lost on me, that I am making very serious accusations against wealthy and powerful executives, lawyers, and corporations. I spent years wondering if the car door out front was a sheriff or cops because I said something out of line on an affidavit filed. Often when I was recovering from surgery and couldn’t answer the door if I wanted. And sure enough the cops did come one day.

They came because the NM&F lawyer received my 2016 Journal, pointing out the falsity of her statements under oath. As shown below, and instead of correcting the record as the law requires, she used her connections with the law to have the Police invade MY space. The following lies made by lawyers under oath, in calling ME a liar, is what gives me the ability to go on with this. THEY INSULT ME AND THE LAW.

“In January 2003, AFTER the contract had been executed…” ???

Your co-counsel admits the Smoking Gun proves CCT expected 2002 Bundles Revenue for this sale, that it “established” CCT expected $530,000 in Bundles for the 2002-2006 deal, IN 2002! NOT JAN 2003!

NM&F Filed BOTH the truthful CCT SOF 52 Admitting as such, AND the SJ Memo vehemently supporting Jan 9, 2003, the SAME DAY, June 14, 2011.

This was done in an effort to increase internet real estate revenue, and thus Fontaines Revenue Share..”

REALLY COUNSELOR?

They had “no revenue to speak of”, were hiding a $1.3 Plan with Bundles (SG), as they Offered to Purchase in July 2002 and give me a $4.3 “projection” in it’s place, then pretend to invent Bundles Jan 9, 2003.

THEY KNOW they will divert 90% of every penny through Bundles during 2002 negotiations.

AND CCT MANAGEMENT ADMITTED IT. YOU LIED!

OHHH… They made up Jan 9, having a Policy that sends 90% of everything to Print, and that was done to INCREASE INTERNET REAL ESTATE REVENUE”.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself, and unlicensed to practice law. You also should have to return legal fees you earned by lying to the Court, to compensate MY children from what you stole from them. ALL of you!

Because a Grant of Summary Judgment  can deny a litigant’s right to a Jury Trial, Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56 REQUIRES that affidavits be made of “Personal Knowledge”. But, as I will describe below in her signed statements, Attorney Manning of  NM&F repeatedly denied CCT had even thought about Bundles in 2002, and vouched for instead  the  January  9, 2003,  Bundle Email, which CCT pretended to invent 70 days after the p&s. The Smoking Gun alone proves the attorney disregarded this law! Yet the Courts accepted the January 9 evidence as an absolute defense. It is absolute Litigation Fraud, EASILY prove, admitted.

THE LAWYERS SUCCEEDED IN COMPLETELY DUPING THE COURT!

Court was unable to recognize CCTime’s 2002 Bundle plan or admission because CCTimes and counsel, the folks with the actual records, were asserting Bundles Began in January 9 2003! The Barnstable Courts May 2, 2012 Ruling shows His Honor did not recognize CCT’s 2002-2006 Bundle plan – Not even “Contemplated” until January 9, 2003.

While Barnstable believed Nutter that Bundles were never even discussed during negotiations, since they began in Jan 2003, (which all courts explicitly Held) H&K would tell the Appeals Court the 2002 RE Merger with $520k in Bundles planned, 90% diverted to another CCT pocket, was “disclosed & presented” to me during negotiations. H&K will be my best witness against NM&F, and visa versa!

I’d like to point out that H&K Attorney Mitchell’s 3/15/13 Appellate Brief quoted below told the court the Smoking Gun doesn’t even “reference” Bundles. BIG Mistake.

The lazy, greedy, perjury for a fee lawyers MISSED $530,000 in Bundles on that document. AND THEN was forced to say the Smoking Gun - with Bundles he swears began in 2003 - was “fully disclosed and provided” Before the 2002 sale. I’D LOVE TO HEAR THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN CORPORATION AND COUNSEL THAT WAS A THE BASIS OF THAT RIDICULOUS CLAIM!

CARE TO EXPLAIN KEN? The lawyer must have been stunned when I pointed out he had missed $530,000 in 2002 Bundles shown on that document, knowing both his firm and NM&F before him had won SJ based on Bundles being conceived “AFTER the contract was executed”, using the Fake January 9, 2003 Bundle Proposal as proof. Ad do so affidavit after affidavit, year after year after year.

So he did what any greedy, unethical lawyer would do, he went back and conspired with the client, to claim, without a HINT of evidence (being it’s obviously false), that CCT informed me of Bundles before p&s.
The Problem with that theory, KEN, is that you won the lawsuit swearing that “substantiated evidence” proved CCT didnt even conceive of Bundles until Jan 2003?

Can I remind the Court that Kempf admitted Bundles went back to 2000, Evans admitted 2002 Bundles, Meyer “did not know which year” Bundles began,  NM&F admitted $530,000 in Bundles counted in 2002 in SOF 52, the Smoking Gun shows 2002 Bundles, Archie.org shows CCT’s 2002 Bundles, Sept 2003 CCT Email talks 2000 Bundles to 1/10th of 1%,  and here H&K claims Bundles were “Disclosed” in 2002.

So pro se litigant Fontaine wonders  how Barnstable, Mass Appeals Court, Mass SJC, and Mass Bar Council ALL allowed CCT to claim innocence using a Fake Jan 9, 2003 Document? I was forced to spend thousands of hours and thousand of dollars supplying 9+- versions of the entire record to the Appeals Court, another 17+- to Mass SJC. THATS A LOT OF CLERKS AND JUDGES THAT DIDNT EVEN BOTHER!

Consider that Mitchell tells the Appeals Court that The Smoking Gun was:
“fully Disclosed and provided to Fontaine during negotiations”.

The silly attorney forgetting his Client Evans stated she, Kempf & Meyer “poured over and molded” the “three scenario” $4,310,000 “projection” with the July 2002 Offer, and that I reacted we could “do better than that”.

Evans didnt mention the 4th, The $1,300,000 Smoking Gun, because CCT was waiting for Jan 2003, to invent that, Remember Counsel? CAN YOU TELL A JUDGE WHY THERE IS A $1.3 AND A $4.3, AND WHICH CAME 1ST?

Yet as detailed below he has multiple affidavits repeating A DIFFERENT VERSION OF FACTS:
“To the contrary, the only substantiated evidence establishes that the CCTimes conceived of the print and internet bundling strategy in early 2003, after the execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and that no representations concerning internet bundling were made to Fontaine whatsoever during the negotiations of the Purchase and Sale Agreement”.

AND THE APPEALS COURT FELL FOR IT.  Perhaps they should have read the Barnstable Ruling:
Pg8. ”In sum, Plaintiff has not offered evidence that the topics allegedly misrepresented to him were even contemplated by CCT at the time the P&S was executed, much less actively concealed from him. Rather, plaintiff admits that bundling was not discussed during negotiations, and the record reflects this concept was not formally proposed until January 2003”.

P11.”the record does not support Plaintiffs allegation that CCT executives had expressed or implemented bundle advertising, prior to 2002. To the contrary, the record reflects that Robert Kempf did not propose the concept until January 2003”. (court meant “prior to 03”).

P12.”Indeed, Plaintiff’s own allegations confirm that Bundling was never discussed during negotiations”.

I CAN APPRECIATE GIVING THEM THE BENEFIT OF ALL DOUBTS, BUT YOU GAVE THEM EVERYTHING!

To Home Page

If I find myself so fortunate as to be in a court some day disputing these allegations with the company and lawyers, remind me to show the back and forth communication I had at one point with News Corp Counsel, detailing the specifics of their lawyers fraud upon the court. And the emails informing top lawyers both firms, and both H&K Lawyers, and NM&F, on top of the Barnstable Court (2 60b Motions), appeals Court Brief, reply brief, Req for Rehearing (denied), Mass SJC, Mass Bar Counsel. Nobody interested among them all, including countless Judge’s Clerks who had it in black & white in front of them/

“All of these acts by each of the individual defendants …show, clearly and convincingly, that the defendants ‘sentiently set in motion [an] unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate [this] matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense,”

Rockdale Management Co. v. Shawmut Bank. N.A.

SECOND, the Barnstable Court relied repeatedly on the Fake January 9, 2003 Bundle “evidence” as proving CCT “Could Not” have plotted Bundles in 2002. Appeals Court concurred.

THIRD, Both Nutter McClennen & Fish and successor Holland & Knight, repeatedly vouched for and substantiated evidence to the Courts, Backing the January 9, 2003 Evidence.

Dow Jones, Ottaway Newspapers owned CCT in 2007 when I filed suit in US District Court, and Nutter, McClennen & Fish began making false statements in a frivolous defense of their client.
News Corp owned CCT in 2012 when H&K filed their Appellate Briefs in Massachusetts Court of Appeals, vouching for the January 9, 2003 evidence.
Gatehouse Media owned CCT in 2013 when H&K filed Affidavits in Massachusetts Court of Appeals, and into 2014 filing in Barnstable Superior, vouching for the January 9, 2003 evidence.