| |
 |
State of Maine v. Michael A. Doyle
Lawyers: Reply to Homans Response April 5, 2002 Ms. Karen Kingsley, Assistant Bar Counsel RE: GCF#02-50/Amy Homans What Homans does continuously is subsitute conjecture as FACT. On page 2 I told my clients not to invest money that they could not afford to lose due to my not knowing how it worked. I never said invest some money because I think you can AFFORD to lose it. This is a prime example of Homans manipulation of the real facts to cast the worst possible light on what took place. Homans fails to point out through out her response that I never stepped back from this venture because DeTroy and Dyer were constantly telling me that the State was wrong in its position. Dyer writes in memos to me "tell them the investment is working", "expose the State investigation for what it is, an abuse of administrative authority", "the State wants to interrupt your income for some unknown reason". Couple the above with his FOI suit filing and the panel may understand that the conflicting information that I received led me to believe that continue sales were supported by not one but two lawyers. DeTroy tells Dancoes in a letter to forewarn the clients so they "would be less likely to cooperate with the State". Is this a reasonable statement to make after his "warning" two months earlier? Not being a lawyer, I would have expected a letter restating the warning in very strong language. On page 3 Homans description of the Diamond call, is not supported by a subsequent call, and the transcript of the second call. Homans knows this, yet is not capable of honestly disclosing it to the panel. I never received the Diamond letter, if in fact it was ever sent. I first saw the Diamond letter when VanDyke faxed it to me several years after it was sent. On page 4 there is absolutely nothing from DeTroy in writing in support of any warning to cease sales. In fact DeTroy fails to deny his authorship of the "PLAN" set forth by Dyer or the "points that Peter makes" in a Dyer memo. On page 5 Homans states I was dating two working mothers, implying that it was concurrent. In fact in was consecutive. One of the working mothers had a condo at Sugarloaf and a season pass for her and the three children. She was also able to buy $900 custom wooden screen doors for her house overlooking the in ground pool, and a $5000 car so her daughter wouldn't have to ride the school bus. My clients did invest based on their trust in me, as I continued to make sales based on my trust in Dyer and DeTroy's advice, that the State was wrong in its opinion. On page 7 Homans has no idea what was said to me by VanDyke or what I relied on in making my decision to plead guilty. Whether Diamond testified or gave a statement or gave an interview the nuances came down in my mind that I now had proof that Diamond lied in his description of the first call. As VanDyke states in his letter the tone and content of the second call makes no sense if it followed a call warning of criminal/felony exposure. On page 10 I am not qualified to split hairs with Homans on what level Dancoes statements were or were not proffers. Surfice it to say that a large portion of Homans case against me stems from the lies made by Dancoes to secure a deal for himself at my expense and with the aid of Homans. Let's review the public record of Denis C. J. Dancoes. First, Dancoes owed $11,000 in unpaid child support that was secured by a lien on his home at 47 Bellaire Rd. South Portland. Second, he owed over $50,000 in taxes to the IRS which was also secured by a lien on his home. Lastly, his ex-wife sent a letter to the editor of the Saco paper, which was published, thanking the Salvation Army for providing Christmas for her three children for years while Dancoes' second wife, Sheila Donahue, worked as a lawyer at Unum. All of this was disclosed to me by Dancoes over the years we worked together. Homans was either derelict in her duties to check Dancoes' credibility before relying on his numerous lies as truthful statements against me. Or, even worst yet, Homans knew all of this and chose to ignore it and accepted statements against me from a witness, Dancoes, she knew to be disreputable in his family responsibilities which could be an indicator of more serious problems in telling the truth in a felony case. Were it not for the statue of limitations having run out Homans' witness, Dancoes, would likely be facing a Federal indictment for tax fraud involving both his Federal and State income tax returns committed during an audit in the summer or fall of 1996. Any statements from Dyer concerning this matter should be viewed from the perspective of his memos, letters, and actions after his "October 10th memo". All of which would indicate to a reasonable person that the October memo never took place. Dyer's own billing statements show no time charges for a call to the lawyer in Texas. All the "spinning" that Homans does for the balance of her answer does not change the facts which speak for themselves. Homans was not privy to much of anything that took place prior to her involvement, but that has never deterred her from leaping from one wrong conclusion to the next false statement in her effort to prosecute me at the expense of being truthful. On page 13 Homans states that I told Maine Bank and Trust that the investmant was like an IRA. I never said that. This is an example of Homans taking at face value every lie told her by Dancoes. Homans failed to verify anything said by Dancoes in her zeal to convict me. On page 14 Homans knew or should have known that Dancoes' increase in his commissions came from the client and that my override remained unchanged. We continued to make sales under the direction of Dyer and DeTroy. Please referrence my complaint against DeTroy for the January '97 letter when he writes to Dancoes "it may be a security". DeTroy writes this AFTER he purports to warn both Dancoes and me that this is a PONZI. In this complaint process it has become glaring apparent to me that when lawyers are caught in misdeeds they simply deny what they have previously written and ignore the facts. On page 15 Homans wants to split hairs on what is perjury from Dyer. Dyer gave a deposition and said he stopped having any more to do with this matter in January of '97. Homans knew at that point that Dyer was lying due to numerous court actions by Dyer for the following five months. I never ignored any red flags and only followed the advice, which undeniably was given to me by two well-known lawyers. Any conjecture by Homans is not supported by the facts and documents that I discovered after May 23, 2001. On page 16 Homans states that I kept a copy of the camp registration for future use in my defense. This is based on what knowledge by Homans? Last fall when I discovered the conflicts in statements I saw Marchese on TV and learned only then that she was an AGG. When I realized to what extent that Homans had lied and accepted lies in my prosecution only then did I go to the Y and get a copy of the form [View Form]. This can be verified by the camp director as I asked her to copy it several times until we got as clear a copy as possible. This was done only a few months ago. I could provide more details but will refrain from doing so to keep the embarrassment to Marchese to a minimum. On page 17 Homans lies in her statement that she "at no time did I knowingly or intentionally misstate the facts of this case". An example of Homans lie would be at the end of my sentencing hearing when she could not resist throwing one more lie on the fire. "Mr. Doyle has a large number of gun permits..." Beyond the fact that I would expect an AAG to know that a gun permit is not required to own a firearm in Maine. If it were a requirement it would be available to her department's investigation. Additionally, Homans knew this to be a lie on another level as her chief witness against me, Dancoes, went with me when I sold all my guns to raise money to pay legal fees. It is interesting to note what Homans conviently leaves out of her defense and deprives the panel of an honest assessment of her response. On page 18 it was not Mariner's policy that paid my clients. It was my policy purchased through Mariner and the premiums were paid by me from my commission account. Homans for whatever reason refuses to be honest about this fact. The conclusion drawn by Homans is an extension of false statements, her lies, the lies of two lawyers unsupported by their own memos, and lies from Dancoes who's questionable character is overlooked in the Homans race to convict me. Only someone of Homans talent could write that a man on his way to be sentenced would think the AAG would be intimidated "in some way" by my filing an ethics complaint on facts that stand on their own merit. Homans has a real fear that I will get a trial from my appeal and the ridiculous behavior of her, Diamond, Berne, Dyer, DeTroy, and VanDyke will come to light in a courtroom. Sincerely, Michael A. Doyle
| |||||||
