| |
 |
February 23, 2009 Honorable Leigh Saufley, Chief Justice Dear Justice Saufley: I enclose copies of several letters in the order that I received them. I believe their importance is self-evident. What I have found additionally disturbing is, if there was any investigation of these allegations, I have been excluded from it and any results therefrom. I request that the Law Court, as the ultimate supervisor of courts and the Bar of Overseers, conduct an investigation into this matter and the outcome be provided to me in writing. Specifically, why would Justice Fritzsche rule that Van Dyke's conflict of interest was inconsequential because it was not important to Van Dyke? When at the same time during the Post Conviction process the Bar ruled that my court appointed attorney, Karen Wolfram, was required to obtain a signed waiver by me due to a secretary changing employer from Dyer's firm to my attorney's new firm, Daniel Lilley's where Wolfram was now employed. After signing that waiver and receiving the Bar's approval to continue with Wolfram's representation Daniel Lilley was sued for malpractice and DeTroy was his defense lawyer. When that took place Wolfram was required to withdraw as my lawyer. Van Dyke was represented by DeTroy, who was the State's witness-in-chief against me, for malpractice at the same time Van Dyke was pressuring me into a guilty plea. No one required Van Dyke to withdraw with a similar conflict that was more direct than the conflict in Lilley's office involving a secretary. Such a conflict, had Van Dyke disclosed it, would have precluded any guilty plea by me and a change of lawyers to one who would not have to cross examine his own defense lawyer about that lawyer's plan ("Peter's Plan is excellent") as discussed in a Dyer memo. Additionally, Justice Fritzsche's ruling, which contradicts the Bar Rule on when privilege attaches, was described by a Harvard Law alumnus whose practice is limited to federal criminal appeals and a Colonel in the USAR JAG office, and a Yale Law alumnus, as bizarre. These points speak directly to, and lend credence to, the charges made in the DeTroy letter. Beyond a blanket denial from all those involved what other viable and/or logical explanation can there be for what took place in the Post Conviction Review Hearing denial? Thank you for investigating this matter and your anticipated report to me on your findings. Sincerely, Michael A. Doyle |
| ||||||
 Introduction | Timeline | Timeline Summary | Lawyers | Contact Us | Home |