| |
 |
State of Maine v. Michael A. Doyle
Lawyers: Reply to DeTroy Response March 19, 2002 Ms. Karen G. Kingsley, Esq. Dear Ms. Kingsley: RE: GCF #02-32/Peter DeTroy First DeTroy misstates the facts of my first Motion to withdraw my first guilty plea. It was after the discovery of a tape recording of a telephone conversation between Diamond and myself. That recording brought into question and challenged the proffer given by Diamond so seriously that my sentencing was halted while my Motion to Vacate was scheduled for a hearing. My second guilty plea was induced by misconduct by VanDyke that is subject in a separate complaint. My Motions to Vacate my second guilty plea are directly related to the misconduct of VanDyke and not related to my approaching sentencing. This is a fact well known to DeTroy and his statement to the contrary is false. DeTroy was at all times, by me, considered my attorney. Dancoes and I agreed to pay each attorney separately and follow their advice jointly. DeTroy gave advice to me at several meetings that I followed to the letter. At no time did DeTroy ever state that he was not acting as my lawyer also. DeTroy sent a letter to Dancoes, Exhibit 3, that I have never seen before. DeTroy offers no explanation of why after his alledged warnings to Dancoes, that Dancoes continued to make sales in the tens of thousands of dollars. DeTroy's statements concerning the Dyer October 10th memo are more troubling. DeTroy offers no explanation of why Dancoes continued to sell the Joint Venture after "assured me he would have nothing further etc." from the time period of late November to early December. The only logically explanation is that Dancoes either was not given any warning or that the plans that Dyer states in several writings that were DeTroy's ideas were the only counsel provided by DeTroy to Dancoes and myself. The January 17, 1997 letter states that "what might be characterized as 'securities' given etc." makes no sense if it followed as DeTroy professes a long line of dire warning. One would expect a letter restating earlier warnings and not advice to seek "someone with specific expertise." DeTroy offers no explanation for his advice to "forewarn the clients so they will be less likely to cooperate with the State". One would think that his letter would provide a warning instead of advice on how to disrupt a State investigation on what he claims to know at that very moment was the sale of unregistered securities. Factually, DeTroy has failed to deny his part in the ongoing plans to keep the sales going long after the October 10, 1996 Dyer memo. Plans and ideas attributed to DeTroy by Dyer in several very aggressive memos. DeTroy lacks any documentation concurrent with, and in opposition to, the plans referred to by Dyer as being created by DeTroy. Frankly it is frieghtning that a lawyer of DeTroy's stature would provide such obviously refutible statements in his defense. His ignoring his participation in and the planning and blueprinting of an approach to the clients that included "tell them the investment is working" months after the October 10, 1996 memo is beyond my comprehension. The only explanation that would provide some idea of what DeTroy is thinking is that he considers this complaint a waste of his time to provide an honest and sensible anwser. Finally, DeTroy has failed to file some unknown number of State Income tax returns and pay the tax on them. It is generally known that he recently filed and paid the taxes perhaps as part of his recent refusal of a seat on the Law Court. This coupled with his ongoing heart problem may have left him unable to understand and respond accurately to a complaint to the Board. Sincerely, Michael A. Doyle
| |||||||
