| |
 |
State of Maine v. Michael A. Doyle
Lawyers: Homans CONFLICTS IN PROFFERED TESTIMONY 1. Steve Diamond From the interview by Amy Homans of Steve Diamond on April 7, 1999: In the return phone call from Doyle to Diamond on Oct. 3, 1996 at 5:50pm to number 624.8551 lasting 6 minutes Diamond states on page 4 of Diamond's statement, last paragraph, "Steve advised him that the investment might be a security and that it was not registered. He cautioned him that the knowing sale of an unregistered security was a crime and that any further sales would constitute criminal activity. He was very firm in delivering this warning. Doyle did not disagree with him or ask any questions." Facts in opposition to the Diamond statement: The second call by Doyle on Oct. 4, 1996 at 11:05 am to Steve Diamond at 624.8551 lasting 9 minutes had no warning or any discussion by Diamond of the previous call. Doyle recorded the call. The transcript of the call as described by Atty. VanDyke in his letter to Doyle on Oct. 13, 2000 page 2 second paragraph last 4 sentences. "I provided the Diamond audiotape to Atty. Homans and to Mr. Diamond. Everyone agreed that the conversation memorialized by the audiotape must necessarily be the second telephone conversation between yourself and Mr. Diamond. We continue to assert that the tone and content of that telephone conversation 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." Additionally, on the tape recording Doyle states "that he is not selling an unregistered security." This statement goes unchallenged by Diamond when a reasonable person would expect that Diamond would repeat his previous alleged warning from a call less then 24 hours earlier. Lastly, Doyle had 27 years experience selling mutual funds, was a Registered Principal for a broker/dealer, and managed an Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction. Why would Doyle ignore any warning from a regulator, especially one purporting a felony action against him? 2. Peter DeTroy From the interview by Amy Homans of Peter DeTroy on April 7, 1999: DeTroy states that he first met with Doyle and Dancoes on Nov. 14, 1996. DeTroy met with Dancoes on Dec. 12, 1996 and repeated his warnings of Nov. 14th. On page 4 third paragraph "Peter told them that the thing was a Ponzi scheme or a pyramid scheme and that they should stay away from it. Facts in opposition to statement: Dancoes and Doyle continue to sell after that meeting and another meeting on Jan. 13, 1997 at 4:30 at DeTroy's office. Doyle deposits $40,000 at the end of January 1997, which would make no sense, if in fact Doyle was warned by DeTroy that it was a Ponzi. DeTroy's entire proffer is contradicted by his letters and phone calls with Dyer on the following dates Nov. 18, Nov. 20, Nov. 21, Dec. 3, Dec. 10, Jan. 3, telling Dancoes "if they (clients) are forewarned, they may be less likely to cooperate with the State's effort." Jan. 9, Jan. 17, Jan. 21. DeTroy had all of Doyle's files prior to Atty. Berne taking over from Dyer in May 1997. Doyle can not know what documents were removed from the file that would further implicate DeTroy in his misconduct. A reasonable person would expect their lawyer not to plot ways to continue keeping the State at bay while more money is brought into the joint venture increasing the exposure of the lawyer's clients and causing more investors to lose money. 3. Ralph Dyer Dyer testifies in his deposition for the State dated Jan. 26, 2001 on page 31 lines 22 to 25, regarding a conversation with Doyle in early Jan. 1997, " I told him I was very angry at what he had done. I thought that it was inappropriate given this letter to Diamond and that as far as I was concerned that I was out of this. I wasn't going to take any more dealings with him about this." Facts in opposition to statement: Dyer's deposition is perjury. Dyer had a total of 19 actions in court appearances, in memos, in letters, and in court filings after he claims he was out of this. Dyer's Jan. 9, 1997 memo to Doyle describes the State investigation "as a bogus misuse of administrative authority" which followed Dyer's filing of a FOI suit against the State. On the next to last sentence on the Jan. 9 memo Dyer further states, " In the interim, continue to communicate with the clients and let them know that the State wants to interrupt their income for unknown reasons." This memo makes no sense in the context of the Oct. 10th Dyer memo. Unless Dyer never sent the Oct. 10th memo or Dyer is either an accessory to this crime before and after the fact. Finally, how does Dyer explain his appearance at the DeTroy office in May 1997 when it was learned that the program had collapsed? 4. Denis Dancoes As described in Amy Homan's letter to VanDyke dated Mar. 4, 1999 page 3 sixth paragraph. "Mr. Doyle did not disclose to his partner, Denis Dancoes, until approximately six weeks after the fact, (from Oct. 3rd) that he had been contacted by the State Securities Administrator regarding the possibility that the investment was an unregistered security and that he had agreed to stop selling the investment. Mr. Doyle only disclosed that information to Mr. Dancoes after Mr. Dancoes was contacted in mid-November by the Administrator. Mr. Doyle was collecting commissions on Mr. Dancoes sales in the meantime." Facts in opposition to statement: Doyle and Dancoes met with DeTroy on Oct. 7, 1996 and left DeTroy's office and went directly to the law office of Shaines and McEachern in Portsmouth, NH so Dancoes could form a NH corporation to continue the sales at DeTroy indirect advice. DeTroy stated, "that these programs slow down after a while". Which led Doyle to believe that not only was everything all right but that DeTroy was familiar with the concept and approved of it. The Shaines and McEachern letter verifies the dates and actions taken by Dancoes that contradict his entire proffer. 5. Amy Homans AAG Facts in opposition to State's position: Homans knew that Dancoes had gone to NH on Oct. 7, 1996 and on the same date, Dancoes set up a new corporation, Casco Bay Capital, and opened a new bank account at the Olde Port Bank and Trust. Those records were in Homans possession since June of 1997. Additionally Homans knew that Dancoes was served a subpoena at his So. Portland home a few days after Doyle was served in Falmouth in 1996. For Homans or Dancoes to claim lack of knowledge of what was taking place is a complete falsehood.
| |||||||
