| |
 |
State of Maine v. Michael A. Doyle
Lawyers: Reply to Homans Second Response May 3, 2002 Mr. J. Scott Davis VIA: Fax 623-4175 RE: GCF#02-50 / Amy Homans Dear Mr. Davis: The following is my reply to Homans further response. First item page 1: Is it possible for two well regarded lawyers to tell a client that the investment is a Ponzi in October of 1996 and advise them to inform their clients that the "investment is working" in a memo several months later? Would such advice, if it took place, prior to the memo render the verbal advice worthless? How is a client to know that his lawyer is giving conflicting advice when all he has to guide him are the actual memos in support of the investment? The relevancy should be apparent even to Homans. Item 2 page 2: Whether the October 7th letter was ever sent will remain in doubt. What is not in doubt is the FACT that I never received it. Whatever silence Homans attributes to me on any point at any time after my indictment can be laid at the doorstep of David VanDyke. VanDyke failed to disclose many items to me over the entire time he represented me. Such failure to disclose continuously DEPRIVED me of information that would have been very relevant to my defense. Item 3 page 2: Homans fails to do any review of key witnesses' background. Homans finds DeTroy "beyond reproach in his professional conduct". How does Homans explain that I, with no resources, discovered that it was common knowledge in the legal community in Portland the DeTroy had failed to file and pay some number of State Tax Returns. Does Homans treat this lack of filing tax returns by an officer of the court as acceptable and "beyond reproach"? Item 5 page 4: There is a large difference between keeping a short leash on Dancoes for business purposes and taking his word in a felony trial. It is notable that the first opportunity that Dancoes had outside my control he cut the return to his clients in half and tripled his commissions. Dancoes' control over the contracts hinged on his computer skills and the manipulation of the word processor and NOT any ulterior motive on my part. Item 6 page 5: DeTroy states that we were warned in November 1996 that this was a Ponzi. How does DeTroy write a letter that a Ponzi "may be a security" in January 1997 and advised us to seek legal advice from another law firm that has expertise in securities? Item 8 page 5: Homans' reference to my "fun permits" is an example of her careful review of her work product and whatever standards that may, or may not include. I do not believe that the record will show that Homans said anything about a federal permit in my presence in court and if not, another lie added to the pile. Item 9 page 6: Homans intentionally misstated the policyholder identity repeatedly in every court session to show each judge that I did nothing and provided nothing to mitigate my client losses to my detriment. Item 10 page 6: I pled guilty twice based solely on the lies told to me by VanDyke and on whose advice I mistakenly relied upon. Michael A. Doyle
| |||||||
