March 16, 2002

Karen G. Kingsley
Assistant Bar Counsel
Board of Overseers of the Bar
P.O. Box 527
Augusta, ME 04332-0527

Dear Ms. Kingsley:     RE: Doyle/VanDyke No. GCF 02-31

I am singularly unimpressed by Mr. Sweet's obfuscation and by the sheer volume of his response. His GROSS MISREPRESENTATION of all the salient facts is an unfortunate byproduct of his firm's ongoing misconduct. The facts and what took place on the record and in writings seriously dispute his fabrications in defense of VanDyke's behavior. I continue to think, apparently mistakenly, that at some point a lawyer or law firm that I have complained against, will by the force of logic, be required to respond truthfully as to their conduct.

In this, my clarifications of Sweet's reply, he attacks what can't be defended and defends against that which has not been attacked. The crux of my complaint is that VanDyke knew that my files went from me to DeTroy to Berne to VanDyke long (nearly a year and a half) before I knew that DeTroy was making false statements against me. VanDyke then told me repeatedly for three years that there was nothing in my file to remotely support my position or to challenge Dyer and DeTroy's false statements. That VanDyke failed to disclose to me his firm's relationship with DeTroy's. That VanDyke failed to disclose to me his personal relationship with DeTroy's brother. All of which would have convinced me that there existed extreme conflicts of interests. VanDyke's failure to disclose started the process to defraud me of fees that I would otherwise never have paid to him or his firm.

Had VanDyke pulled those Dyer and DeTroy documents out at our first or second meeting and said I can't defend you at trial with these I would have sought another lawyer immediately. I trusted VanDyke's word that it would be only my word against Dyer and DeTroy. VanDyke's withholding those documents from me and his lying about their very existence coupled with his badgering of me (see his own affidavit) on February 12, 2001, along with what I knew at the time to be no trial preparation for me personally led me to plead guilty not once, but twice. VanDyke's actions constitutes defrauding me of fees that I otherwise would never have paid given the choice between a trial with the documents in evidence versus a guilty plea done under extreme duress.

Consequently, here follows my disputes with Sweet's gratutious and self-serving responses. For these purposes I will reference the page number and underline the item in red and refer to it by number.

Page 2 Item 1. FALSE Dyer never represented me after the venture collapsed in May 1997 and Dyer's representation never came under review by me at this point in time as I was not aware of Dyer's false statements against me.
Item 2. FALSE VanDyke knew that the second Diamond call on tape in his words "makes no sense if it followed, etc." in his letter quoted on page 10 of the response. Consequently, Sweet knows that item to be false by VanDyke's own admission.
Item 3. FALSE VanDyke used the stop sign example many times. "You don't have to have foreknowledge that passing a stop sign violates traffic law, just running the sign is the violation".
Item 4. FALSE VanDyke repeated the example in item 3 continuously.

Page 3 Item 1 FALSE VanDyke knew that I had no files at all in my possession as they had gone from DeTroy to Berne to VanDyke. Had I had the Dyer memos I would have never pled guilty twice.

Page 4 Item 1 FALSE The only statement that I ever recall seeing was Dancoes' and I wrote a detailed rebuttal to it.
Item 2 FALSE VanDyke to my knowledge never sought to interview any witnesses other that the State's witnesses. When VanDyke did interview the State's witnesses he never once challenged their account, confront them with memos in conflict with their statements, or seek explanations as to their "plan" 60 and 90 days after their "warnings". Such cross examnination I would think to be basic to this case and the preparation for a felony trial.

Page 5 Item 1 TRUE This clearly illustrates that I did not have the Dyer October 10th memo in my files given by me to DeTroy to Berne to VanDyke. Also, a memo that crucial to Dyer, would or should be, in the file that Dyer gave directly to VanDyke. The fact that it was not, would raise the question where such a pivotal document could have been for a year and a half before it was miraculously discovered in DeTroy's file.
Item 2. FALSE This is so preposterous as to its assignment to me. VanDyke asked me is this a conspiracy against you by Dyer and DeTroy? I was emphatic that there was no conspiracy, but that each person involved had their own agenda. Diamond wanted a conviction in this case and would say whatever was needed before he moved onto the P.U.C. I would imagined that Diamond has trouble sleeping hoping I don't find the tape of the first call which would prove his perjury beyond a doubt. Homans was leaving the AG's office and to quote VanDyke "she wants to go out with a win". Dyer was concerned all his "tell them the investment is working", "the investigation is bogus etc.", and "the State wants to interrupt your income flow for some unknown reason" advice would come back to haunt him. At which point he saw the need for a memo dated early in the program that would provide an out for him. DeTroy was busy with the Car Test case then the Tobacco Settlement case coupled with his non-filing and nonpayment of some unknown number of years of State Income Tax returns. Add the previous DeTroy problems to what I understand that he also has a handicap child at home and an ongoing heart problem that caused him to be hospitalized late last summer. It is possible that given all that DeTroy was involved in he simply dropped the ball without malious intent to do me harm.

Page 6 Item 1 FALSE I only agreed to that "strategy" because of the position that I was in due to VanDyke gross misrepresentation and misconduct.

Page 7 Item 1 FALSE I only agreed to this plea based exclusively and entirely on VanDyke's assertion to me that there did not exist any writings in my file to support my position. Had VanDyke not lied about the existence of the memos and letters I would never have pled guilty on this date.

Page 8 Item 1 FALSE VanDyke knew from the outset that the tape of DeTroy was very faint and in the attempt to transfer it from a micro tape to standard cassette what little could be heard was lost. At no time did I ask or expect VanDyke to file a Motion to Vacate absent the tape of DeTroy's voice. Assertions otherwise are rediculous.

Page 9 Item 1 FALSE The sentencing was stopped according to VanDyke's report to me because of the pending Motion to Vacate and "the bombshell of the tape of Diamond's second call with you".

Page 10 Item 1 Please see page 9 above.

Page 12 Item 1 FALSE The trial was set for December 11, 2000 (see VanDyke letter dated December6, 2000 attached). I have been challenged over and over on not receiving the Dyer memo of October 10th or the Diamond letter of October 7th . However, Homans says she never received notice of this trial date and her statement goes unchall endged.
Item 2 FALSE This may have been one of the many items that Hallett did not find in the file provided by VanDyke along with all the other items that I have come to find out that one can expect in a file that is prepared for trial.

Page 13 Item 1 FALSE I had virtually no communication with VanDyke leading up to both the December trial date and the February one.

Page 14 Item 1 FALSE I had no communication from VanDyke concerning any chambers conference. In fact I appeared at the courthouse ready to pick a jury and start the trial. I refer you to VanDyke's November 5th 2001 affidavit. In it he states that he convinced me to plead guilty a second time after three to four hours of discussions. When VanDyke told me on the 12th of February "that we will lose this trial and you will start a two year sentence at Thomaston Friday", I believed him based on what I knew to be my non preparation for trial. I had no Q and A session or any other preparation. Based on his assurance that I would be sentenced from zero to nine months if I pled guilty I did so to minimze the time away from my young son and not because I was guilty. VanDyke also stated when I asked "you can not plead no contest to any charge. Homans will only accept guilty pleas". A statement that appears dishonest at this time.
Item 2 FALSE VanDyke knew that I expected, based on his statements in the courthouse that morning, to be called as a witness almost immediately after the trial began. Given VanDyke's statement that I would be in prison Friday how could VanDyke prepare me for a felony trial the night before and without any motions ready to file with the Court?

Page 15 Item 1 FALSE VanDyke's preparation of my character witnesses was such a farce in comparison to my recent sentencing hearing that it led several witnesses to comment "thank god you've got a real lawyer now".
Item 2 FALSE VanDyke knew that my mother sold her house (that had been in her family continuously for over two hundred years) to purchase my house at fair market value by obtaining a mortgage in her name and is today the sole owner of my former home. VanDyke also knew that this was done because of fees that my mother was paying from her account to his firm.
Item 3 FALSE VanDyke knew that over $15,000 went to the Rudman firm. VanDyke also knew that the vast majority of the balance went to pay my medical bills related to the accident. The small amount left over went to his firm through my mother and to his direct benefit. At all times I had followed the directions of Berne and VanDyke not to discuss my criminal case with anyone. At the same time Rudman told me not to discuss the two accident cases. At no time did either lawyer question me about any other pending cases. How would I know, and to whom to tell what?

Page 16 Item 1 FALSE Not only does Sweet presume incorrectly he knows that I never had any files to review at any time. Please remember my complaint states that VanDyke told me repeatedly that there was nothing in my files for three years that would support my position. Based on that lie I did not search my file until I was convinced by a friend that there might be some item in the file to help me after my sentencing had begun after April 24, 2001. Let me add here VanDyke's letter to Hallett dated July 17, 2001. I direct your attention to the footnote. Here VanDyke accuses me of stealing his trial preparation. Apparently, his theory is I want to make him look worst than he already does, if that's possible. VanDyke's "the dog ate my homework" excuse should be viewed by the Board as an outstanding example of methods he used at my expense.

Page 17 Item 1 FALSE VanDyke and I had a brief discussion just before I left as we stood in the reception area of his office. I was angry at what I had found yet felt trapped into keeping VanDyke as my lawyer until I found a replacement.
Item 2 FALSE I was following instructions from both Rudman and VanDyke not to discuss the cases. When Rudman dropped me (due to VanDyke's previous misconduct) I was forced by default to accept VanDyke as the next lawyer for the Rattigan case. Any statement that uses this action as my endorsement of VanDyke's legal skills has failed to read this reply.
Item 3 FALSE This is such a blatant lie I am frankly stunned. After showing the memos to several people I began an intense search for a replacement for VanDyke. I interviewed four lawyers in person and at least one over the phone. All of them were HONEST enough, unlike VanDyke, to tell me they had an ongoing relationship with DeTroy and would not jepordize that relationship both personal and business to represent me. However, one prominent lawyer was kind enough to refer me to Hallett. VanDyke never suggested that I change lawyers and had no idea that I was even searching until he was contacted by Hallett.

Page 18 Item 1 FALSE This was Hallett's FIRST Motion to Vacate my SECOND guilty plea.
Item 2 Please note that the July 17, 2001 letter is omitted by Sweet and all the bad behavior that it portrays.

Page 19 Item 1 At this point I know that I have to keep VanDyke from any awareness that I am utterly horrified by what I have found in my file and have him testify honestly at my hearing to Vacate. Any hint VanDyke got that I was upset with him may have forewarned him to conjure up some lie that he would use against me in court, similar to what the Board has seen in the Sweet response.

Page 20 Item 1 Once again I am trying to get VanDyke to give honest testimony at my hearing. Why would I put VanDyke on guard as to his misconduct? Simply reading his affidavit #10 1 to 6 shows his level of preparedness, or lack there of.
Item 2 FALSE That was not possible since I only reluctantly signed the release on the actually day of the hearing after much discussion with Hallett in the courthouse conference room on the second floor.

Page 21 Item 1 This is a rare find, a true statement. I wanted proof that I had signed a release on the day of the hearing to Vacate.
Item 2. I refer you to my answer for page 19 above.
Item 3. Another example of the misconduct of VanDyke and by implication the firm of Berman & Simmons. The Motion for Withdrawal by VanDyke was never sent to me and I learned of it only from the Court granting the Motion sent to me by the Court. Due to VanDyke's failure to mail fax or call me with notice to withdraw I was nearly put into the position to have a very serious injury case dismissed unless I could find a lawyer immediately. This is not to say that I wasn't searching since leaving VanDyke for Hallett. Two lawyers told me that the case was severely in disaray and that they believed it was possibly fatally compromised by VanDyke's work. I finally got a lawyer to take the case only if it could be continued off the April trial list due to his schedule. If it is not continued then VanDyke's covert Motion to Withdraw has damaged me severely, and leaves me with no lawyer and time limits closing in on a dismissal.
Item 4. I thanked everyone that contributed to the charity as a curtesy and not an endorsement of VanDyke. I solicited contributions from several people that I had paid money to in the recent past VanDyke was only one of them and no importance should or could be drawn from that.

Page 22 Item 1. A situation develop with my eleven year old son that was literally the last straw. I have kept quiet since May 23, 2001 and I could not in good consious continue that silence at the expense of my son.
Item 2. Dealt with earlier as a default choice.
Item 3. A plea that I had no idea about was likely, how?

Page 23 Item 1. The duress that was applied by VanDyke to westle the second guilty plea from me can not be describe properly here. Surfice it to say had VanDyke been honest with me at any time I would not have pled guilty and most likely would have changed lawyers.
Item 2.

Introduction | Timeline | Timeline Summary | Lawyers | Contact Us | Home