| |
 |
State of Maine v. Michael A. Doyle
Lawyers: Complaint to Board of Overseers February 26, 2002 Board of Overseers of the Bar To Whom It May Concern: RE: Amy M. Homans, AAG The proffer of Denis C. J. Dancoes, dated August 26, 1998, Exhibit A is false in so many areas that I will primarily address only the ones that I have written proof of, or the Record supports my charge of perjury. Starting at para. 31 Dancoes was at all my meetings with Dyer starting from my first contact by the State. Para. 32 how could I tell him at this stage about the FOIA before Dyer had even decided to tell me that Dyer was thinking we should file one? The date of the filing was Nov. 25, 1996. I never received the Diamond letter dated Oct. 7 1996 so it would be impossible to show it to Dancoes. Para. 33 the record should show that we were both subpoenaed only a few days apart in November. Para. 39 and 40 these false statements are addressed in my complaint against DeTroy (DeTroy's writings contradict this whole section). Para. 43 this would be after what DeTroy states was his first meeting with Dancoes in mid-November. How does Dancoes explain his trip to New Hampshire on October 7, 1996 to set up the new corporation and the new bank account at Olde Port Bank & Trust? More importantly how does DeTroy explain his support of such a blatant lie? Exhibit B. Which we did after meeting with DeTroy. Para. 47 Maine Bank and Trust closed both of our accounts when they transferred from the Dancoes account to the Doyle account $16,000, more than Dancoes had in the account, leaving an overdrawn balance of more than $14,000 in the Dancoes account. A mistake the bank did not want to repeat. Para. 56 Doyle received 5% of the Dancoes sales. At the first opportunity to write his own contracts Dancoes set up a 10% payment to the client and a 15% payment to himself. Homans knew that this was perjury because she had all the files showing the bank records (see Homans letter dated Aug. 7, 1998 first para. Exhibit C) of both Doyle (supplied by Berne) and Dancoes (supplied by DeTroy) that these accounts and the Dancoes corporation in NH started on October 7, 1996. Consequently Homans knew that DeTroy's proffer was also perjury because it confirmed and supported the perjury in the Dancoes statement. Homans during the Deposition of Ralph Dyer heard him state emphatically that he had no further dealing with me on this case starting in mid-January of 1997. Homans knew this to be perjury because the AG s office had a running court battle with Dyer for five months after Jan. 1997 involving 16 court appearances and/or filings. Homans supplied an article dated 2-8-99 Exhibit D fifth line from the bottom, "Garrett recruited many investors through unwitting advisors here." Homans knew that I was a victim of Garrett as well. Homans knew that the DeTroy proffer was perjury, yet used it in her letter dated Sep. 25, 2000 first page last para. Exhibit E Homans used perjury or suborned perjury repeatedly in order to extort a guilty plea from a defendant that she knew to be innocent. Homans did this knowingly to a defendant that was, in her words, "desperate not to be sentenced". A defendant that Homans knew to be innocent and knew he would have the impossible feat of overcoming the totality of the perjury that she would knowingly use against him in order for him to minimize the time in prison away from his young son. The following will illustrate how thin the belief that Doyle was guilty of any crime at the Attorney General's office. AAG Marchese allowed Doyle to register her son Ben for summer Y camp Exhibit F. Could the AG's office cite one other instance where a person indicted for a felony and pled guilty not once but twice to the crimes was allowed by an AAG to perform such a personal service? I contend it was general knowledge within the AG's office that not only was I NOT guilty, but also, was in fact innocent. I also contend that the AG's office was generally aware that the testimony and proffers were false or perjured statements. It is also my contention that AAG Homans repeatedly misstated the facts of the case to my detriment and that the Court relied on those misstatements to deny me the opportunity to have a trial. For example Homans states that the State prepared twice for a trial. False, when the trial was first scheduled in mid-Dec. 2000 Homans CLAIMS she did not receive notice from the clerk's office. Homans arrived several hours late straight from the shower. The trial was reset for mid-February. Yet, Homans continues to hammer away about the Diamond letter dated Oct. 7, 1996 that Doyle did not receive pointing to it as Doyle's first warning. J. Mills then cites the two trial preparations in her decision denying the Motion to Vacate the Guilty Plea. Another example is Homans misstating that my former broker/dealer, Mariner Financial, paid the restitution to my clients that were also clients of Mariner. Homans knows that this is totally false because she knew that I paid a premium for Errors and Omissions insurance every month deducted from my commission account at Mariner. She acknowledged this information when at the beginning of this case she told Berne that part of her proposed plea agreement was for me to reimburse the insurance company $200,000. How can a defendant faced with the unlimited resources of the State begin to defend himself when the prosecutor intentionally, knowingly, and with extreme malice extorts two guilty pleas from the defendant that she knows to be innocent, by the use of, and the suborning of perjury? When dealing with a person's life are there no standards of conduct that govern the behavior of the prosecutor? Are there no Rules of Ethics that set the boundaries on what is morally and legally acceptable?
| |||||||
