Seth Berner
Yes your Honor. In 2002 Mr. Doyle was convicted of three counts of theft that arose out of security fraud as part of his sentence he was put on probation for 4 years terms of his probation was payment of $4000 of restitution per year for four years, 200 hours of community service per year for four years. In the early part of this year discussions were held with the State about allowing to accelerate his restitution and his community service. And February of this year Lara Nomani, and at that time, the attorney for the State and the Attorney General's Office, and on my information, would be here today were it not for health problems, sent me a letter saying that, I can read it into the record, I can present it, this is the original of the letter saying that if Mr. Doyle completes his restitution and community service that she, on behalf of the State, would have no objection to his early termination, you can see that at the end of the first long paragraph. In reliance on that the request for a hearing to modify the terms of probation was waived. And an Order by agreement was submitted which expressly provided Mr. Doyle with the opportunity to accelerate payment of restitution performance community service and making it clear that he would have the opportunity to move for early termination of probation should he do that. Mr. Doyle did do that. He completed the 400 hours of community service that were remaining to be performed under the Order that the Court has in the file. He paid $8000 to the State, which was the total amount remaining to be paid. That amount was sent to the State. Accepted by the State. That amount has never been questioned by the State. It has never been returned by the State. It was accepted. And then moved for the early termination of his probation. The first he knew that the State was opposing this and I'll say violation of the agreement that was expressed by attorney Nomani in February was when he was informed by the Court that there was opposition and contested hearing would need to be held. That's the background of this your Honor.

It seems that Mr. Doyle has been put into the situation that seems kind of Kaffaesque. If he doesn't pay his restitution he is obviously in violation of his probation. If he pays more than his restitution he is deemed to be, I don't know, obtaining funds from some unlawful source. Although the State has never given any indication that they had any basis whatsoever for an allegation that the funds are improper. And in fact can have no basis for it. And the fact remains that Mr. Doyle has performed in good faith. He has done what this Court tries so hard to get from most people. He has given money ahead of schedule, which is something the Court can appreciate, which is something it wishes all people would do. And we are facing opposition and we don't know why. But based on the letter, which this Court has and based on the Order signed by Justice Fritsche, early termination is in order. We can go forward with testimony if necessary. I'm not sure what that would do.

Justice Broderick:
What's the State position?

AAG Robbin:
Your Honor what I think that Lara Nomani's letter states that she would not oppose early termination if all conditions of probation were met. Certainly the State would be remiss to approve early termination if we had evidence that Mr. Doyle was still continuing to offer fraudulent investments to individuals or to otherwise continue his criminal activity. And what has happened your honor to provide this information that over the years he has been under supervision he has indicated no consistent employment, and has typically said he doesn't have the money to pay restitution. In this year your Honor all we have is two pay stubs for $72 and $41. (I WAS REQUIRED ONLY TO BRING MY MOST RECENT PAY STUB, WHICH REFLECTED THE END OF A CONTRACT POSITION. THE YEAR SHE REFERS TO, CONSISTED OF ONE MEETING IN JANUARY, JUNE, AND AUGUST.) What happened, and I don't believe that Mr. Berner has this information, that in April of this year Miss Ackley received an anonymous call about Mr. Doyle. That he was selling insurance in another person's name, that he was financing expensive cars, and that he wasn't paying child support, (THIS IS A TOTAL LIE STARTING WITH THE "ANONYMOUS" PHONE CALL). We wanted to investigate that, Miss Ackley in consultation with Miss Nomani who was AAG assigned to the case, who is on medical leave through mid-October, Miss Ackley requested copies of his income tax returns from Mr. Doyle. Mr. Doyle told her to pound sand. He then filed a motion.

Berner:
I'm going to object to that characterization your Honor. That suggests a belligerence on Mr. Doyle's part that I don't believe is appropriate.

Judge:
Is that an exact quote?

Robbin:
No, that is not an exact quote. That is a characterization. He said no. (SHE ADMITS THIS IS LIE NUMBER TWO.) And filed a motion to enjoin the Defendant, I guess that would be the State of Maine, from incarcerating the Plaintiff based on this request for income tax returns. And he has to date not provided them the financial information and that it was beyond her authority to request. He continues to cry poverty and then in August of this year he comes up with $8000 of restitution. We have no information about his income we have no information about the sources of his money. And his position is that's it none of our business. (THIS IS NUMBER THREE A TOTAL LIE BECAUSE FOR THE THREE WEEKS BETWEEN THE $8000 PAYMENT AND THE HEARING NO ONE FROM THE STATE ASKED ME WHERE THE MONEY CAME FROM. HAD THEY DONE THAT I COULD HAVE PROVED THE SOURCE AND BEEN OFF PROBATION NEARLY A MONTH AGO). We got a guy convicted of security fraud. (THIS IS LIE NUMBER FOUR, I PLED GUILTY BECAUSE OF MY OWN CROOKED LAWYER DAVID VANDYKE TO ONE COUNT SALE OF AN UNREGISTERED SECURITY, ONE COUNT UNLICENSED SALE OF A SECURITY, AND ONE COUNT OF MISREPRESENTATION. SOUNDS DIFFERENT THAN FRAUD TO YOU AND TO A JUDGE DOSEN'T IT?) How does he come up with $8000 after four years of crying poverty and he tells us it's none of our business to ask where it comes from. (THIS IS LIE NUMBER FIVE SHE IS QUOTING A NONEXISTENT CONVERSATION.) It would not be responsible to allow early termination without a though investigation of Mr. Doyle financial background. We want to make sure we don't have another victim out there.

Judge:
You're saying he may be in violation of probation that says he can not commit any new crimes.

Robbin:
We're saying he may be in violation because we don't know where his money is coming from.

Berner:
Again I'm going to object to that characterization. You're putting words into Mr. Doyle's mouth.

Robbin:
He is in violation of paragraph 3 in conditions of probation. His probation officer asked for his tax returns and he said no.

Judge:
I don't have the copy of the sentencing form.

Berner:
We're about to set the record for the most paper in a file. It's been up to the Law Court twice already.

Judge:
Just condition 3?

Robbin:
At this point your honor we're requesting additional information so that condition number 1 isn't violated.

Judge:
What question are you saying he didn't answer?

Robbin:
We're requesting that he produce his income tax returns. Prior to August of '06 he didn't have the ability to pay restitution. (LIE NUMBER SIX, I PAID THE PREVIOUS TWO YEARS LATE BUT IN FULL BECAUSE THE STATE RESTRICTED MY ABILITY TO EARN MONEY TO ONLY THE STATE OF MAINE.) In August of '06 he comes up with $8000. In conjunction with the anonymous call.

Judge:
I tend to view these conditions strictly. It seems to me if you want him to produce his income tax then you should have put it under special conditions of probation. I agree he has to answer questions there's nothing in here about producing income tax returns.

Robbin:
Your honor ah ah when she asked about his work and ah ah money the information was ah vague and spotty. And it certainly doesn't support an ability to pay an $8000 restitution amount.

Judge:
Did she ask him where he got the $8000?

Robbin:
She hasn't spoken to him since he made the payment. (SO HOW COULD MY POSITION BE THAT IT WAS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS WHERE THE MONEY CAME FROM WHEN SHE NOW ADMITS THAT NO ONE SPOKE TO ME FROM THE TIME THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE DATE OF THE HEARING? WHATEVER LIE ROBBIN COULD TELL TO PREJUIDICE THE JUDGE AGAINST ME SHE DID AT EVERY TURN.