 |
State of Maine v. Michael A. Doyle
Lawyers: Points in Opposition to the State
- October 4, 1996 The second phone call to Steve Diamond has no mention of any warning or follow up to any warning from the call 18 hours earlier because Diamond never gave any warning at anytime.
- October 10, 1996 Ralph Dyer purports to author and send a memo to Doyle that the Joint Venture is a scam. This memo is not in the file provided to David VanDyke by Dyer and is found at DeTroy's office nearly three years later.
- November 25, 1996 Dyer files FOI suit while telling Doyle that the State is totally wrong.
- December 3, 1996 Dyer sends Doyle, DeTroy's five-point plan. "Peter's plan is excellent." "You should contact your clients..." item "c" tell them "THE INVESTMENT IS WORKING". How does Dyer and DeTroy explain that they had claimed to have warned Doyle that this was a Ponzi two months earlier? Why would Dyer and DeTroy write to Doyle to have Doyle tell his clients that a venture they claim is a Ponzi two months earlier should be described as "that the investment is working"?
- January 9, 1997 Dyer writes to Doyle describing the state's investigation and to "expose the investigation as a bogus misuse of administrative authority" and to tell Doyle's clients that "the state wants to interrupt their income for unknown reasons".
- January 17, 1996 DeTroy writes to Denis Dancoes, "further sales of what might be characterized as ' "securities" '. How does DeTroy explain that he claims to have warned that this was a Ponzi three months earlier and now it might be a security and refers us to a law firm that specializes in securities?
- May 23, 2001 Doyle reviewed his file at Berman & Simmons for the first time and finds that David Van Dyke had lied to Doyle for over three years that there were no documents that sustain his statement that not only did his lawyers not warn him of any wrong doing that they activily promoted the ongoing venture.
- July 5, 2001 Thomas Hallett takes over the defense.
- November 2, 2001 VanDyke signs affidavit stating item 10 1 through 6 that VanDyke had not prepared for trial thereby forcing Doyle into a plea negoiation of guilty, even though VanDyke knew that Doyle wanted a jury trial.
- November 5, 2001 VanDyke forces Doyle to sign a release from a malpractice suit in order to secure VanDyke's truthful testimony at the hearing on the Motion to Vacate the second guilty plea. VanDyke was fearful that the Motion to Vacate would be granted after the hearing and Doyle would be found not guilty at trial and free to sue VanDyke for malpractice.
|
