Justice Paul Fritzsche denied Doyle's Petition for Post Conviction Review to Vacate Doyle's second guilty plea. Here follows some interesting quotes from the witnesses, all attorneys, licensed in Maine, from the transcript of the hearing, followed by quotations from Judge Fritzsche's Order and Decision.

Vol. I. P.41 Line 22 Thomas Hallett, Esq. Answers on direct:
" Peter (DeTroy) was going to try to be testifying for the State and I wasn't sure that he could because I thought there was a joint privilege, which would apply to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Dancoes."

P. 136 Line 20-25 P. 137 Line 1-6 Hallett responds on direct referring to the Dyer memo.
Q. " On its face in bold capital letters what does it say?"
A. " Privileged and confidential attorney/client communications."
Q. "As an attorney where does DeTroy's testimony come from?"
A. It comes exclusively apparently from this document dated October 10th 1996, LM6 I think."
Q. "What does Mr. DeTroy base his advice on?"
A. "On that document."
Q. "And would that then qualify as privilege in your view."
A. "The joint privilege applies, yes, it does."
Q. "And does Mr. Doyle's singular privilege apply as well to that advice."
A. "Yes, I would believe it does."

P. 211 Line 25 P. 212 Line 1-6 David Van Dyke responds on direct referring to the Rule 11 Hearing (guilty plea).
" I would point out just for the completeness of the record that if this matter had gone to trial Mr. Doyle would have indicated, we would have first of all challenged the testimony of Mr. Dyer, misspelled, and Mr. DeTroy on the grounds of admissibility given the attorney/client privilege."
Q. … "Are you asserting attorney/client privilege with regard to DeTroy in this statement?"
A. "We would have asserted, we would have asserted the privilege."

P. 138 Line 18-25 P. 139 Line 1-9 Redirect of Mary Davis, Esq. the Court provided expert legal witness.
Q. "… Mr. Colleran asked you earlier about the privilege and whether or not Mr. Doyle had ever had any fee agreement with Mr. DeTroy and whether or not Mr. Doyle had had any retainer or retention of services by Mr. DeTroy for privilege to attach, do you actually need money to change hands?"
A. " No, the rule makes clear, I think the rule explicitly states that you do not."
Q. " Do you need any form of agreement before privilege may attach?"
A. "No."
Q. " So just any consultation with an attorney with a view to obtaining his advice is sufficient for privilege to attach, am I correct?"
A. "Yes."

From Judge Fritzsche's Order:
"No attorney-client privilege existed between Mr. Doyle and Mr. DeTroy."

P. 51 Line 12-14 Thomas Hallett responds on direct regarding the Dyer memo which was based on a phone conversation between Dyer and Edward Lewis, Esq.
A. "Yeah what he (Lewis) had to say to me I thought was very important because he (Lewis) completely refuted this document."
P. 53 Line 3-7
A. " he (Lewis) had spoken to Dyer at some point, it was the details of this memorandum that he disputed, that he said no, I didn't say that, it's flat out something I did not say."

From Judge Fritzsche's Order:
" The decision not to call the attorney for the thieving masterminds from Texas as a witness was a wise decision."

P. 59 Line 20-22 P. 60 Line 2-14 Hallett responds on direct concerning Van Dyke being represented by DeTroy while at the same time representing Doyle.
"… that David Van Dyke was actually represented by Peter DeTroy earlier. I did not know that and that would have been a huge thing, that would have been a huge thing, that would have been a huge thing at the Motion to Withdraw the plea quite frankly."
P. 60 Line 6-25 and P. 61 Line 1-17 Hallett continues:
" I felt that the fact that Peter DeTroy had represented the State in the Car (Test) case… then been chosen to sort of spear-head the cigarette case for the Augusta, … I thought they impeached any testimony Peter DeTroy would give, … I thought that was really quite incredible actually that the attorney who represented that State in huge cases, huge fees, … then was being asked by the State to testify … against a joint Defendant."

P. 62 Line 2-4 Hallett continues
" I think it's a conflict under the Bar Rules, you know 3.4 or something, I think prohibit it." (view document)

P. 115 Line 10-22 Hallett continues
" … with Peter DeTroy in this case it was going to be very ugly. It was going to be a very nasty thing. Not that you necessarily had to go there but if you did have to go there it was going to be really ugly, and I, for one, would not want to be in a situation where I was going after my lawyer and say to my lawyer you're giving them a gift, you are giving the State a gift here, they gave you however many millions of dollars and you are giving them a gift back, I would never want to have to do that. I think that is a conflict, if you have to do that.

Vol. III P. 15 Line 18-23 From Mary Davis, Esq. Responds on Van Dyke's handling of the State's Civil complaint.
" … I think it would have to be litigated, but it certainly would be unfair for the attorney (Van Dyke) not to tell him (Doyle) that there may be civil penalties and I (Van Dyke) didn't negotiate about them when I was talking to the State. He definitely should have done that."

P. 65 Line 17-25 Mary Davis continues regarding Van Dyke's conflict.
Q. Now assuming then that Mr. Van Dyke is aware of the conflict and he doesn't notify Mr. Doyle because he thinks that it will make no difference, right, what does that….?"
A. " That effects… if he knew and didn't notify his client, that effects … that does make the effect that is required for ineffective assistance. It just has to effect the representation. So that would be a serious…
P. 66 Line 1-15 con't …deficiency on his part that does effect the representation; in other words, it doesn't have to show like a normal post conviction claim would have to show that it was, that it was likely or reasonable likely Mr. Doyle would have taken a different action in the case. It doesn't have to show that. Just has to show any effect in the case at all, even including a conversation or lack of conversation, that effects the case."
Davis continues P. 68 Line 20-25 and P. 69 Line 1-2
"Well, at that time he (Van Dyke) should have not only told Mr. Doyle but he should have told the Court, your Honor, I had a conflict of interest, it- it slipped my mind, I am sorry I didn't disclose it before now but I would like to erase everything I did for this client, give him his money back and let him get another attorney. That's what he (Van Dyke) should have done."

Judge Fritzsche states on P. 69 Line 17-24 regarding Van Dyke's failure to disclose to Doyle that he was being represented by DeTroy.
" I am aware that there were numerous opportunities for Mr. Van Dyke to make this disclosure and he failed to do those on a variety of opportunities where this case becomes particularly important and you have the … you are having some dealings with your client and something that matters, and in none of those cases was a timely disclosure made."

P. 70 Line 14-25 and P. 71 Line 1-7 Mary Davis responds on Van Dyke's obtaining a release from Doyle protecting Van Dyke from a suit from Doyle prior to Van Dyke testifying to vacate the second guilty plea.
Q. "… what is your position on obtaining a release on the same day as testifying on behalf of your former client in a Motion to Withdraw (Vacate)?"
A. " My first reaction was is this criminal behavior on someone's part? If I were David Van Dyke and someone offered me a release to tell the truth I would be insulted that I would, I would be appalled and say what are you doing? I'm here as a witness I'm going to tell the truth. My testimony isn't for sale based on a release or some other paper that I'm signing. This is ridiculous. As a matter of fact the other only time I ever heard of one of these things was another case Mr. Van Dyke was involved in. I have never had one of these, I have never heard of one; no one has ever insulted me by offering me one for my testimony. I think it was appalling."

From Judge Fritzsche's Order:
" There is no credible evidence that Mr. Van Dyke avoided a trial because he did not want to cross-examine his own attorney, Attorney DeTroy. Bar Rule 3.4 (f) (1) … While there was no "informed written consent" or even timely disclosure there was " no substantial risk" that DeTroy's defense of Mr. Van Dyke would "materially and adversely affect" Mr. Van Dyke's representation of Mr. Doyle.

P. 36 Line 1-12 Judge Fritzsche talking to Ms. Davis, Esq.
"… Attempt to get by with a certain degree of swagger, bravado, machismo, whatever you want, that just I can read people, I can go on my gut instincts, I know so much. I'm so good, I can do things that perhaps lessor mortals can't. Do you have any comments as to whether you se any evidence of that going on here, of sort of I think it's in my client interest to plead guilty, I'm firm about that, however, if we really have to do a trial, I'm good enough, I have done enough of these, I can pull it off?"

P. 36 Line 13-17 Davis replies to Judge Fritzsche
"Well, that's a serious incompetence or inefficiency to think that I have such a wonderful personality or style that I don't have to have any witnesses."
P. 37 Line 1-18 Davis continues
"… But I would never think you could go into Court without preparing and just say I'm good enough that I can just make it up as I go along."

From Judge Fritzsche's Order:
Mr. Van Dyke was prepared enough for trial if there was to be one. While he and other trial attorneys rely in part on their experience, confidence and a certain amount of swagger and bravado, he also knew the facts and the law of the case, as a competent counsel must, and could have skillfully gone to trial.

The following was an exchange between Michael Colleran, AAG for the State and Doyle. P. 248 Line 11-18
A. " I was a Registered Representative (RR) for mutual funds."
Q. " Okay, and that's a securities license?"
A. " No, not to my understanding of it."
Q. " Well, mutual funds are securities, correct, under the N.A.S.D. rules?"
A. " Yes, but not in the industry understanding of securities, as opposed to mutual funds.

Michael Colleran has recently been appointed as the Administrator of the Securities Division of the Department of Business Regulation for the State of Maine. In the industry a Series 7 licensed RR are trained in, and sell: stocks, bonds, limited partnerships, options, puts, call, derivatives, syders, real estate investment trusts, and mutual funds. A Series 6 licensed RR sells only mutual funds. Colleran knew this or should have known this before his appointment to run the Securities Division. Colleran knowingly misled the Court with this series of questions.

Doyle never had an opportunity to call one of the dishonest lawyers involved in this case a liar to his face, however, this web site, lyinglawyers.com, demonstrates and documents their lies with their own documents and testimony. Colleran questions Doyle P. 280 Line 7-18

Q. " You are not shy about calling attorneys liars, are you?
A. " I don't think I have called a lawyer a liar."
Q. " Do you have a web site called www.lyinglawyers.com?"
A. "I do."

Was Michael Colleran using a form of lying by withholding the following facts from the Court and misleading the Court, a lie by omission? Two of the eight investors that comprised the group that was the basis of the charges against Doyle were licensed mutual fund salesman. Omar Norton was a RR, as was Thomas Reynolds. Reynolds was also a Registered Principal for mutual funds as was Doyle. Reynolds also traveled the country teaching the course for the RR test and was more familiar with the laws than Doyle was.

It is important to note that neither Norton nor Reynolds ever thought the rate of return was too high or that the investment was an unregistered security.

P. 246 Line 24-25 P. 247 Line 1-3 Doyle turns in the witness seat to face Judge Fritzsche to respond to what he wanted from this hearing.
" Your Honor, I would like to get a trial where I have an unconflicted lawyer, a competent attorney that is not involved with passing my privileged information to the State, if that's possible."