| |
 |
State of Maine v. Michael A. Doyle
Lawyers: Complaint to Overseers February 16, 2002 Board of Overseers the Bar To Whom It May Concern: RE: Peter J. DeTroy I DO NOT WAIVE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVELEGE IN THIS COMPLAINT DeTroy's proffer to the State dated, April 7, 1999, is riddled with false statements beginning with the second para. Exhibit A Dancoes and I first met with DeTroy on October 7, 1996 and under the advice of DeTroy we left his office and went directly to Portsmouth, NH. Where we met with Robert Shaines of the firm of Shaines & McEachern and Dancoes set up a new corporation for the purpose of selling the joint venture Exhibit B. We then went to the Olde Port Bank in Portsmouth and set up new bank accounts. Third para. "It certainly appeared to be a security" "they were not to make any further sales." This will be contradicted in later exhibits. The balance of the proffer is totally false on all important points. DeTroy's letter to Sullivan dated, December 3, 1996, next to the last para. Exhibit C " I also join in Attorney Dyer's earlier request on behalf of Mr. Doyle for any 'consumer complaints' relating to Dirigo Capital Group. THIS REQUEST IS MADE PURSANT TO THE MAINE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT." (Emphasis added) This contradicts DeTroy's proffer pg. 2 forth para. starting "On Nov. 24, 1996". DeTroy's letter to Dancoes dated, January 3, 1997, Exhibit D "if they (the clients) are forewarned, they may be less likely to cooperate with the State's effort". A reasonable person would not expect his lawyer to advise his clients to obstruct justice during a potential criminal investigation by the State. Unless the lawyer, DeTroy, had repeatedly told his clients Dancoes and Doyle that the State was wrong to conduct the investigation and that Dancoes and Doyle were doing nothing wrong. DeTroy's letter to Dancoes dated, January 17, 1997, Exhibit E forth para. "What might be characterized as 'securities' given etc." This contradicts DeTroy's proffer first page third para. "Peter told them that it certainly appeared to be a security". DeTroy is at odds in his proffer dated two and a half years after what he actually wrote. DeTroy plots strategy with Dyer Exhibit F DeTroy has "an excellent plan", "Peter's points are good" Exhibit G Why would DeTroy do this if on Nov, 29, 1996 as he states in his proffer Dyer sends him the three page fax. DeTroy "Peter made the following points" dated January 9, 1997, Exhibit H. In May 1997 when Dyer withdrew DeTroy instructed Doyle to bring all his files to DeTroy's office and DeTroy would review them and refer Doyle to a defense lawyer. To this date Doyle does not know what documents were removed to further cover up DeTroy's misconduct. DeTroy's false statements in his proffer provided part of a series of false statements that the State used to extort two guilty pleas from Doyle based upon his need to overcome the perjury of the three attorneys in this case at trial.
| |||||||
