| |
 |
State of Maine v. Michael A. Doyle
Lawyers: Response to Diamond's Proffer February 22, 2002 Board of Overseers of the Bar To Whom It May Concern: RE: Stephen L. Diamond Diamond's proffer, dated April 7, 1999, page 4 last para. is totally false. Diamond made no mention of a potential crime and subsequent documents and a transcript of a second phone call brings into question the honesty of his entire proffer, Exhibit A. On pg. 5 second para. "He would be forced to go to court and obtain an injunction"; no place in the transcript does Diamond use the word INJUNCTION. Diamond's letter dated Oct. 7, 1996, was never received by Doyle and its authenticity and date are not supported by subsequent actions by Diamond Exhibit B. The transcript of the phone call was made from a tape of the second call between Diamond and Doyle on Oct. 4, 1996, Exhibit C. Doyle discovered the tape in June of 2000 over a year after Diamond's false proffer. On pg. 2 Doyle: You had somebody inquiring that I'm selling securities that aren't registered… Diamond: I,I, Doyle: And I'm not. At this point a reasonable person would expect Diamond to challenge that statement and at the very least restate the criminal warning on a phone call 18 hours earlier. Instead Diamond goes on to talk about Dirigo and NEVER comments on any warning for the rest of the call because on the previous call Diamond gave no warning. David VanDyke's letter dated Oct. 13, 2000, Exhibit D. "We continue to assert that the tone and content of that telephone conversation between yourself and Mr. Diamond makes no sense if it followed, as alleged, a conversation in which Mr. Diamond described criminal/felony sanctions for the continued sale of the subject instruments." Apparently both Diamond and AAG Homans were surprised by the existence of the tape at what was to be a sentencing hearing for Doyle. Lastly, Dyer's memo dated Nov. 21, 1996, Exhibit E. The last line illustrates the falseness of Diamond's proffer; "Steve was non-threatening and spoke in a matter-of -fact, pleasant tone." Would this make any sense from a regulator warning of "injunctions", "criminal/felony sanctions", and used the word "imperative" in the alleged "warning call" on Oct. 3, 1996? I think not. Diamond's false statements in his proffer provided part of a series of false statements that the State used to extort two guilty pleas from Doyle based upon his need to overcome the perjury of the three attorneys in this case at trial.
| |||||||
