| |
 |
State of Maine v. Michael A. Doyle
Lawyers: Reply to Dyer's Response March 14, 2002 Ms. Karen G. Kingsley RE: GCF#02-33/Michael Doyle Dear Ms. Kingsley, Thank you for allowing me to reply to Mr. Dyer's response. This may not qualify as additional information but will serve only to clarify the incredible difference between what Dyer offered to the State as testimony against me and what he actually wrote to me. It may be possible that Mr. Dyer is not able to remember something as important as the facts that led me to plead guilty to a felony I did not commit based solely on his and DeTroy's deposition and proffers without his files. However, if he can not recall truthfully he should say nothing at all, rather than destroy someone's life with a mistaken memory, or even worse, a lie. Beginning with the second page of the Dyer letter second paragraph it begins with "Mr. Doyle's contention"; this is totally erroneous on Dyer's part. Not only did I not receive the letter dated October 10th, the fax or copy of that document was not in the file provided to successor lawyer VanDyke by Dyer, and was located by VanDyke in a file at DeTroy's office nearly two years after it was allegedly authored. Noting Dyer's Exhibit B I would like an explanation of how a billing notation dated October 11, 1996 for a call to Lewis in Texas could be responsible for the generation of a memo to me on the 10th concerning a call that had yet to take place. As for his postage record copy it relates to nothing specific and I would think it would be reasonable to link it to any of a large number of envelopes going to my office on several concurrent actions brought by Dyer, including an invoice for services dated October 11, 1996. In the next paragraph covering the Levenson matter I would ask that you read the April 27, 1997 letter from Dyer to the Securities Division. I have underlined key passages. Not only was I not involved in "litigation" about a second unrelated matter. I was never found guilty or otherwise because as Dyer states it makes no sense to reverse what was ultimately a profitable transaction (Levenson earned $13,000 more because of the transfer) and because it was within the same family of funds I was paid ZERO to do the transfer. Dyer states, "Mariner has expressed incredulity that you would want a reversal of a profitable transaction and the payment of the profit." Dyer's last paragraph on the second page is nonsensical when compared to what he actually wrote and said to me at that time. I will only reference what I have in writing because that is sufficiently damning for my purposes. Dyer in a memo dated December 3, 1996 reviews DeTroy's "excellent plan". In item (c) Dyer says using DeTroy's talking points, to tell the clients "The investment is working". How insane does a lawyer have to be to tell a client that, nearly 60 days after the State begins an investigation, the lawyer files a FOI action, and the same lawyer claims to have told his client this is a PONZI? Dyer then goes on to say in January 9, 1997 memo that the State's investigation is "bogus" and for me to tell MY CLIENTS "that the State wants to interrupt their income for unknown reasons." These are even more bizarre statements coming almost 90 days after the alleged October 10th memo. In May of 1997 the State, Dyer, or Berne did not tell me that I was a target of a criminal investigation. Only that the State needed my help to understand what happened to the money after it left Maine. It may be apocryphal that Dyer refers to four lawyers in his closing to the extent that I depended on, and only consulted with, him and DeTroy. Whoever, the other two mystery lawyers are, they are not known to me. It is instructive to note that Dyer produces nothing in writing to counteract a blizzard of advice to me, to keep the program going for months after his alleged October 10th memo to me. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Michael A. Doyle
| |||||||
