AnatomyofaFraud.com
The Smoking Gun!
Think about it! There was no need for CCT to magically conceive of a new idea, Bundling the RE advertising, Print & Internet, 70 days after p&s, they had already plotted the deal with Bundles during 2002 negotiations, exactly when I was asking them to disclose ANYTHING that would effect the split.
In a deal where the very consideration was based on, and controlled by, CCT’s efforts, as they were assuring they would work to make the deal revenue, they had fraudulently plotted to directly compete with me instead. THEY ALONE KNEW, 90% Hidden Bundle Policy meant $1.3 and NOT $4.3!
The fake January 9, 2003 Bundle proposal, which the Courts all believe to be CCT’s innocent, legitimate conception of Bundling, was actually a strategic final cog in their scam which they had been engaging all along. CCT used it to deceive me in 2003, CCT lawyers used it to deceive the Court.
Consider, that $73,000 in 2002 Bundle Revenue shown above, $7,300 Internet share,
has NEVER been accounted for by CCT. To me as required by the p&s, or to the courts,
who would immediately recognize CCT COULD NOT conceive of Bundle in Jan 2003, when
they had IN FACT ALREADY Calculated $520,000 worth of Bundle sales -
The $52,000+-
SO HOW DID TWO COURTS HOLD THAT CCT HATCHED BUNDLES IN JAN 2003, AFTER THE 2002 P&S?
I had placed this document atop my Appellate Reply Brief, and STILL that Court agreed with the Barnstable Court before it, that CCT innocently conceived Bundles per that January 9, 2003 Email Evidence. An impossible proposition, fake evidence, proven by their own records!
ARE YOU KIDDING ME MASSACHUSETTS COURTS, I PLACED CCT’S 2002 90%/20% BUNDLE PLAN
ATOP MY 2013 REPLY BRIEF, AND STILL YOU RULE CCT CONCEIVED OF BUNDLES IN JANUARY
2003? My Pro-
So with this document that exposes CCT’s entire scam, plotting Bundles during the 2002 negotiations, in a document named after my business, which contemplates THIS sale, on June 14, 2011, a CCT lawyer from Nutter, McLennan & Fish was asked and answered Statement Of Fact #52.
Do you know why CCT has NEVER accounted to me or the courts for A PENNY of that
$73,000 represented by $7,300 to Internet Department for 2002? I Do!
Do you know why
CCT lawyers from both firms repeatedly assured the Courts, in signed affidavits,
that CCT didnt even think up Bundles until Jan 2003? I Do!
When that fill-
The lawyers
should have advised the company to settle this suit, and pay me back what I prove
they had stolen. The Court should have granted SJ to ME!
BUT EVERYONE MISSED THE IMPLICATION OF THAT ADMISSION, SO THE FANCY LAWYERS WENT
ON TO BACK FAKE EVIDENCE FOR YEARS TO FOLLOW.
Such as: *Giving me a $4.2 Projection,
when hiding the $1.3 Plan. *Removing “But Not Limited To” on October 16, instead
of disclosing the Bundles they were hiding. *Surreptitiously reinserting “But Not
Limited To” in the Oct 31 p&s, which only THEY knew was KEY, which I find out in
discovery. * By feigning a January 9,2003 “Bundle” invention, when EVERYBODY in the
building knows CCT has been Bundling this product for years. *January 9 DOESNT USE
the 90/10 “Policy”! ALL FOR SHOW.
How Disgusting is that? 4 months prior the SAME firm signed SJ Memo, “substantiating”
CCT “hatched” Bundles on January 9, 2003. This lawyer was forced to admit CCT has
the entire deal pre-
I had already informed the Court in my Opening Appellate Brief that on June 14, 2011, a CCT lawyer from Nutter, McLennan & Fish answered Statement Of Fact #52 in the affirmative, and had effectively conceded their client had committed the underlying fraud precisely as I had argued.
By June 14, 2011, I had 2 CCT Management depositions, documentary evidence, and an admission by CCT’s own lawyers, that January 9, 2003 was Fake!
Consider below how many times CCT repeatedly vouched for the completely fabricated Jan 9 2003 Defense, as I’ve informed the courts way too often, only to be ignored. Consider that 2002 RE Merger projection plotting the sale with the REAL 2002 Bundle pricing they used.
EVERYONE thinks Bundles began January 9, 2003 -
Nutter, McClennen & Fish -
”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".
“in January, 2003, AFTER (original emphasis) the contract had been executed, CCT developed a marketing concept which was a combination real estate advertising product”.
"..in early 2003, CCT introduced the concept of offering a combination real estate advertising product".
“… CCT misappropriated the online revenue through its subsequently adopted plan to "bundle' its print and online products, incorporated months after the Agreements were executed…”
“therefore, because ccT had not yet developed the marketing strategy of offering its customers a combination of advertising space in its print and online editions, rescission is inappropriate.".
“Therefore, CCT cannot have breached either Agreement. The evidence leads only to one conclusion: Fontaine made an informed decision, after months of negotiations, with the assistance of counsel, to bind himself to a term he may not have been satisfied with”.
"The record evidence involving the package pricing for the real estate book Cape at Home and Internet advertising for real estate was part of an overall plan set out in a memo dated Jan 9, 2003".
"In early 2003, as a way to drive more internet real estate revenue by leveraging existing print customer, CCT began offering print and internet advertising products with a monthly print product, Cape at Home, and its real estate internet site”.
Holland & Knight (9/18/14, 7/7/14, 5/22/14, 4/8/13, 3/15/13). “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”.
Barnstable Superior Court SJ Ruling -
pg5. ”Indeed, contrary to plaintiffs
assertion, documentary evidence indicates that CCT did not propose -
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 2003).
P12.”Indeed, Plaintiff’s own allegations confirm that Bundling was never discussed during negotiations”.
Massachusetts Appeals Court Ruling 12/23/13:
“After the agreement was executed, CCTimes
began to sell Internet advertising in a “bundle”, with print advertising…”.
Can we agree that Both law firms and Both Courts are on record declaring as fact that CCT innocently conceived of Bundles on January 9, 2003, and also that Both Firms and Both Courts agreed that no mention of Bundling was made “whatsoever” prior to the 2002 p&s, SINCE they were conceived in 2003? The problem with that is The Smoking Gun and NM&F’s Answer to CCT SOF Reply #52, signed AFTER Nutter vouched for January 2003, and BEFORE H&K Did!
But The lazy H&K lawyer, when I shoved RE Merger in his face, Failed to recognize
the Smoking Gun or #52 by prior counsel, so his 3/15/13 Appeal Brief:
“The cited Real
Estate Merger analysis makes no reference to any bundles products, and was simply
a revenue projections used in the negotiation of Fontaine’s Net Revenue Share baseline
in connection with the proposed “merger” of Fontaine’s websites and the CCTimes.”
-
Pressed on this ridiculous statement, he is forced to come up with an alternate,
equally false & baseless defense, out of mid-
SEVEN YEARS INTO LITIGATION, AND THE LAWYERS WHO SWORE FOR YEARS THAT CCT’S BUNDLES
BEGAN IN JAN 2003, ARE CLAIMING CCT “DISCLOSED AND PROVIDED” THE DOCUMENT THAT COUNTS
2002-
The Jan 9, 2003 Bundle Proposal isn’t proof of innocence, it’s proof of guilt! And CCT further admits they didnt disclose “whatsoever”.
*Consider they were sitting on this Smoking Gun Projection of $1,300,000, when Cape Cod Times induced me with THIS Fake Projections of $4,310,000 with the 2002 Offer!
**Mitchell tells the court in one affidavit that I admitted I was given this document
before the p&s, but the specific page he cites in his statement was missing from
his filing. It should be quite obvious that Evans stated they gave me the $4.3 projection
in June/July 2002 -
Do you know How New Attorney Mitchell @ H&K Explained THESE $520,000 worth of Bundles
calculated in year 2002 to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals in his 3/15/13 Appeal
Brief: “The cited Real Estate Merger analysis makes no reference to any bundles products,
and was simply a revenue projections used in the negotiation of Fontaine’s Net Revenue
Share baseline in connection with the proposed “merger” of Fontaine’s websites and
the CCTimes.” -
WORSE, IF POSSIBLE, NUTTER, MCLENNEN & FISH MADE WHAT MAY BE THE WORST BLUNDER IN
THEIR ESTEEMED HISTORY, AND ONE THAT DEFINES THIS CASE!
NM&F Attorney Manning, for
some reason (I find EVERYTHING out only after I was forced to appeal pro se in 2012)
had another NM&F Lawyer sign CCT’S “Statement of Facts”. In CCT SOF REPLY #52 (immediately
below), my lawyers at the time asked about CCT’s own document “RE Merger”, and NM&F
was forced to admit CCT had ANOTHER projection besides the $4,300,000 one they had
given to me to rely on, and it “establishes” CCT expected Bundle Revenue, for THIS
sale, IN year 2002. Rendering the January 9, 2003 Defense -
June 14, 2011, 4 Mo after SJ Memo, which vouches Jan 9 (Exh 19) for CCT 1st law firm was forced to admit that their own document showed CCT Plotted 90/10 Bundles in 2002:
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". Your Honors, The lawyers for the corporation just admitted to the crime!
Perhaps because of the fill-
SO NM&F and then H&K after them, continued for years swearing to the Courts
that January 9, 2003 was legitimate. It isn’t. ONLY WHEN a person, Or Judge, Understands
that CCT had 90/10 Bundles secretly planned for the sale in 2002, using 90/10 Bundles,
and did not innocently “conceive” of them after the p&s,Jan 9, does the REST of the
scam Become clear!
ONLY Then does the October 16, 2002 failure to Disclose their Bundle Plan is shown to be fraud and deception, Then the “But Not Limited to”, both CCT’s reluctance to remove the term and their surreptitiously reinserting it BACK into the p&s 2 weeks later (so they could argue it as their right, as they have), and the complete facade that was the Invention of Bundles on Jan 9, 2003, when it represents NOTHING like the secret $1,300,000 RE Merger Plan they would use throughout the deal, now the $4,310,00 Projection they gave me.
CONSIDER THIS, CCT’S lawyers had to admit this document established that CCT had
$530,000 in Bundles Counted for this deal during 2002 negotiations, using the same
90/10 Bundle allocation (diversion) Policy they employed for the entire deal, after
they feigned inventing Bundles in the Jan 9, 2003 email. The Courts failed to recognize,
thanks to lies of CCT Counsel, that January 9, 2003 was staged as part of the underlying
scam, and have fallen for it themselves. CCT claims (and accounted for) ZERO Bundle
revenue UNTIL 2003, after the p&s, yet they KNOW they will do a half million+ in
Bundles sales alone, within the confines of our deal, thanks to the value of my business
they had acquired.
But lawyers weren't the only one’s who contradicted the evidentiary
value of the Jan 9, 2003 Evidence, purporting to be CCT innocent conception of Bundling:
Before I move onto Further evidence exposing CCT’s 2002 Bundles, let me tie in another part of their scam that proves the nature of their Scam. The $4,310,000 “Projection”.
Molly Evans Stated “we poured over iot and (FIND THIS IN PDF)
HE POINTED AND SAI WE
CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT./ WE ALL AGREED MY BUSINESS COULD GENERATE $1,000,000 OUT
OF RTHE GATE.
THE FIGURE SHE’S REFERING TO ON FONTAINE EXH # -
1) THEY DIDNT NEED THIS COMPLEX PROJECTION THEY HAD RE ALREADY MADE USING REAL 90/10
BUNDLE PRICING, AND EXPECTED $1.3 IN REVENUE. THEY TELL ME 4.3
2) THEY KNEW WOULD
CONTROL EVERY BY VIRTUE OF PLICING BY PLACING BACK IN “BUT NOT LIMITED TO” -
2) So when Mitchell CHANGES his story and
Tells the Courts RE merger was “:disclosed:” to me during negotiations, I WANT HIM
TO TELL A JUDGE HOW HE KNOW THAT, AND WHEN? Because he’s lying! HE would have the
court believe CCT gave me THIS $4 MILLION DOLLAR PROJECTION, BUT SOMETIME LATER GAVE
ME A $1.3 Projection, listing Bundles (he missed), and THEN I WAS TO BE SURPRISED
ON JANUARY 9 WHEN THEY INVENT BUNDLES? I DONT THINK SO. LAWYERS LYING TO JUDGES FOR
FEES!
This document details the evidence of the crime, CCT’s secret plan for the 2002-
“Real Estate Merger Analysis /CapeCodRealEstate.com Product
Mix and Revenue Projections 2002-
Why? Because CapeCodRealEstate.com was the name of MY business during 2002 negotiations.
And this concealed Plan proves CCT counts $7,300 in Real Estate Book Bundle revenue
allocated to the Internet Department for year 2002, which equates to $73,000 in anticipated
2002 Bundle revenue. CCT had the entire sale pre-
CCT lawyers, under 3 different corporate owners, in 2 different Courts, for a decade, had “substantiated” evidence which appeared to prove CCT had not “conceived”, “hatched”, Contemplated”, “Began”, or “introduced” the idea of “Bundling” until Jan 9, 03, 70 days AFTER the Oct 31, 2002 p&s. The lawyers swore to the Court that the Jan 9, 2003 “Evidence” is absolute proof of their client’s innocence. *Do you know WHY CCT NEVER used the term “Bundle” in the p&s? They NEEDED ambiguity!
But the 2002 Smoking Gun Renders the January 9 2003 Bundle invention Meaningless, illusory, simply the last act in CCT’s complex Scam! A frivolous Defense by Lawyers! This document shows $520,000 in Bundles planned for the sale, including 02, my Business in it’s title. I mean, It was placed atop my 2013 Appeal Reply Brief.
The May 2, 2012 Barnstable Superior SJ Ruling relies on the fact that CCT hadn't
conceived of Bundling until that Jan 9, 2003 Email Evidence, The Dec 23, 2013 Appeals
Court Ruling Affirmed, explicitly embracing that same, false, fact. This document
shows the folly of it all! CCT COULD NOT BOTH count Bundles in 02 AND conceive them
in 03 -