June 17, 2002

To Panel 1B

RE: Dispute-20-G / Doyle v. Dyer

In Dyer's response, dated received by the Board on March 25, 2002, Dyer states that I did not meet the procedural requirements of the Board. Dyer's behavior has been so egregious that Petitioner saw no point in contacting Dyer. Even more important is the false accusation by Dyer that Petitioner's statements are not truthful. I believe that I can illustrate by the attached documents that Dyer has been extremely dishonest with the Petitioner and the Board through out this entire process.

1. I was not convicted by a jury. I pled guilty twice to a felony that I did not knowingly commit. I committed it at, and under the direction of, Dyer and DeTroy. The plea was extorted from me by VanDyke who's ineptness is only exceeded by his dishonesty.

2. There was no defense of a collection suit at any time during the period covering the disputed fees.

3. Dyer lies when he states that in 1996 he advised Doyle to get out of the investment. Starting with the Dyer memo dated December 3, 1996. How could any lawyer advise his client to tell the investors that "the investment (Ponzi) is working"? How could he state "Peter's (DeTroy) plan is excellent"? Dyer now claims years later that he warned me, when there is nothing in writing dated contemporaneously to support such a ridiculous statement and so much to dispute it.

4. Dyer issues a memo dated January 9, 2002 advising me to "expose the (State's) investigation as a bogus misuse of administrative authority" and "to communicate with the clients and let them know that the State wants to interrupt their income for unknown reasons." Why would Dyer who claims that he warned me that I, and my clients, were in a Ponzi send such a ridiculous memo? The documents support my position that I was in fact not warned and that all Dyer's subsequent claims are nothing more than damage control.

5. Dyer claims to have called Texas and sent me a memo dated October 10, 1996. I would ask the panel to examine the billing records attached. Please note that during the time period from October 7, 1996 to October 17, 1996 there is no charge for a phone conference to Texas, that by its nature, would be at least an hour long in order to generate a two and one half page memo. The conversation referred to by Dyer on October 11, 1996 was such that it contained no warning of any kind. This phantom memo is NOT in the Dyer file supplied to VanDyke by Dyer. One would expect that such a pivotal document would be in the file of the lawyer that authored it. The memo makes its first appearance in late 1999 or early 2000 when it is faxed to VanDyke from a file at DeTroy's office where it was conveniently "found".

6. The balance of the Dyer response is without merit and not supported by any documents.

7. I now refer the Panel to my Ethics Complaint to the Board attached and incorporate it with this hearing.

8. Finally, at no time have I ever charged that any of the lawyers involved in this misconduct against me are co-conspirators. The "conspiracy theory" was floated by every lawyer involved at one time or another to disparage my complaints. I contend that each lawyer acted in their own self interest to cover up their own mistakes and misdeeds. Statements to the contrary are false and self serving.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael A. Doyle

Introduction | Timeline | Timeline Summary | Lawyers | Contact Us | Home