«By Bro. Peter Dimond ****NOTE: This article concerns our recent lawsuit with Eric Hoyle, which we won. All of his fraudulent, false and mortally ...»
On Jan. 2, 2008, Eric Hoyle contacted Trooper Larry LaRose and attempted to have us arrested for supposedly stealing money he donated. An official police report was filed on his behalf reporting a “theft.” Early in his deposition (pp. 69-72), Hoyle testified that he believed he had a right to reclaim about $470,000 of the money he transferred to MHFM. That contradicts his lawsuit which declares that he executed a document guaranteeing him $750,000. Well, Hoyle contradicts himself again later in his deposition when he says that, when talking to the trooper and reporting an alleged theft of his money, he wasn’t sure he had a legal right to reclaim any of it.
HE FIRST CONTRADICTS HIS LAWSUIT BY CLAIMING THAT HE WAS OWED SOMEWHERE AROUND
HE THEN IMMEDIATELY CONTRADICTS HIMSELF AND SAYS HE WAS OWED $750,000Deposition of Plaintiff Eric Hoyle, Feb. 8, 2011, pp. 71-72: “Q. And you’re claiming that you reached some sort of an agreement on that with him, as to the amount? A. Yes. Q. And you’re claiming that amount is approximately four hundred and seventy thousand dollars? A.
No. The amount was I believe seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Q. That’s what you were supposed to get back? A. Yes.”
Deposition of Plaintiff Eric Hoyle, Feb. 8, 2011, p. 69: “Q. Now, when you left the monastery on that day, was it your belief that they owed you an amount of money? A. Yes. Q. Okay.
And how much money did you believe, on that day that you left the monastery, that they owed you? A. I don’t recall.” Deposition of Plaintiff Eric Hoyle, Feb. 8, 2011, pp. 211-212: “Q. And he [Trooper LaRose] specifically asked you whether you had a written agreement with the monastery that you would get any money back, and you told him no, right? A. No. I believe what I told him was that I couldn’t think of one and I’d have to think about what documents I had. Q. Okay. So at the time you called him, you were unable to produce a written agreement for him to get the money back, right? A. That’s right. Q. And you also couldn’t specifically recall one way or the other whether there was a written agreement to get any of the money back? A. That’s correct. At the time I didn’t recall.” Deposition of Plaintiff Eric Hoyle, Feb. 8, 2011, pp. 243-245: “Q. That stock that you gave to the monastery was liquidated at some point, 2005, or 2006, right? A. I believe it was. Q.
Okay. And the portion that you claim was legally yours, the four hundred eighty thousand, did you ever file a report of taxable income with respect to the gain on the portion you claim was legally yours? A. I think there’s an assumption in here that I never agreed to, which is that it was legally mine. My understanding was that I hoped that I had some way to get it back when I realized what had happened when I spoke to Trooper LaRose.
“Q. You were talking about what your tax preparer told you and what you understood your legal rights were, right? Your legal rights. And when you say legally, you believed, as you claim you reported to the State Trooper, that you had a right - enforceable right to about it. I didn’t understand what exactly the situation was. I knew that the money had not take four hundred eighty thousand dollars back, correct? A. No, because I wasn’t sure been in the seven fifty that was acknowledged on the tax report, the tax papers. Q… You weren’t sure what right, if any you had to reclaim any of the one point two million?
MR. EATON: At what time? MR. RITTER: When he was talking to the trooper. THE WITNESS: When I was speaking to the trooper, I was not sure what legal right I had to claim the money. Q. Any of it, right? A. Yes.” So, Hoyle admits under oath that shortly after he left MHFM, he wasn’t sure if he had a legal right to reclaim any of the money. (That’s because he knows he donated the money, and he had no legal right to any of it.) Yet, he still attempts to have us arrested for “theft,” accuses us across the country of stealing from him, and files a lawsuit specifically alleging that there was a documented agreement that would give him back $750,000 (a document he now says he doesn’t have and doesn’t know what it said – because it doesn’t exist). Hoyle also admits that even though he went to a state trooper about a “theft” he said MHFM committed, he simultaneously did not know if he had any right to the money he claimed MHFM had “stolen” from him.
So much for his repeated assertions to MHFM contacts and others all over the country: that we had “stolen” from him, “cheated” him, “violated verbal and written agreements” to give him money, and more. Here are just a few examples of how the liar and fraud Eric Hoyle told people that we stole from him; and he made this false accusation about money he admitted under oath he had no right to.
- On January 2, 2008, Eric Hoyle told Trooper Larry LaRose it is MHFM’s “policy” to unlawfully refuse to return the money that belongs to others. (Bates No. 0001315)
- Hoyle told Joseph G. that MHFM unlawfully withholds money that belongs to him (Bates No.
- In a conversation of February 19, 2008 (Bates No. 0001299), Hoyle told Christy A. that MHFM unlawfully keeps money that belongs to him.
- In January of 2008, Plaintiff told Stephen H. that MHFM stole money from him and from another person.
- In the early part of 2008, Hoyle contacted David B. and said that MHFM had lied to and cheated him.
- On March 22, 2008, Plaintiff conducted a telephone conversation with a man in Oklahoma (Bates No. 0001332). In the conversation, Plaintiff told the man that MHFM is guilty of a pattern of “repetitive fraud.”
- In a conversation with Rosemary A. (Bates No. 0001298), Plaintiff said that MHFM operates and conducts itself in a “fraudulent” way. He also told her that MHFM illegally withheld money that belongs to him and that he hoped to put MHFM “out of commission.”
- In an e-mail of Jan. 21, 2008 (Bates No. 00010006), Hoyle told a man that Bro. Michael Dimond violated “verbal and written agreements” to pay him money he was owed.
There are numerous other examples of Hoyle’s false allegations, all of which are contradicted by his own deposition testimony and the facts of the case. He doesn’t have any agreement (simply because there never was one); he doesn’t know if one existed or what it said (because it didn’t exist); and he doesn’t know if he has any right to any of the money (simply because he donated it and had no right to any of it). But he still says that we stole it. Consider the sin such a false accusation entails. 6 In addition to his massive contradictions, the clear factual record shows that Hoyle donated the money. The judge’s order reflected this fact. Some of these facts are quoted in Bro. Michael’s affidavit (available on our website). For instance, in an email to his tax advisor, dated January 18, 2006, Eric Hoyle provided his tax advisor with numbers for his 2005 taxes, which expressly included under “Gifts” “Stock $1,233,100.00” and “Cash [$]65,700.00.” On January 19, 2006, Hoyle’s tax advisor responded to Hoyle’s January 18, 2006 email and confirmed that he understood and treated Plaintiff’s $1.2 million transfer to MHFM as a gift to a qualifying 501(c)(3) organization. Hoyle even testified that these emails reflected his intention that these donations were gifts to MHFM (Hoyle T.
Hoyle’s totally false, gravely sinful and now-dismissed allegation that we committed theft, which he originally made to a state trooper and also broadcast to his friends and acquaintances – but was forced to completely contradict and retract when questioned under oath, as we see above – is analogous to how liars and false traditionalists confidently spread their lies and dishonest arguments in e-mails, on websites and from behind a computer. However, when they are questioned one on one, in detail, and in a forum where their answers matter, where consistency in their claims becomes critical, what they were previously so confident about saying in private to a receptive audience they suddenly become unwilling to defend. That’s frequently how liars and dishonest men operate.
194: 22 – 195: 2). In his deposition, Eric Hoyle also acknowledges a receipt from MHFM for his donation of $307,989 worth of stock, the other large donation he made to the monastery.
Numerous e-mails written by Hoyle also confirm that he donated the money he transferred to MHFM. As quoted in the Judge’s Decision granting us Summary Judgment, Hoyle wrote that he planned “to give the vast majority of my holdings as an outright gift” to MHFM and that he wished to receive “around $30,000" if he departed MHFM, noting that, “Even that sounds excessive…” Hoyle also wrote, among other things, that MHFM “deserved some serious money”; that he fully intended to “give away the vast majority of my money to good Catholic persons and organizations”;
that his “financial plan for the future is quite literally to give my money away”; and more (Judge’s Decision and Order, pp. 7-8).
Even though the facts above document his stunning contradictions and disprove his false allegations with respect to money he donated, before leaving this matter it’s important to quote Hoyle’s revealing testimony about his primary financial assertion. Hoyle’s explicit and central financial assertion in his Amended Legal Complaint was that he executed a document guaranteeing him $750,000 if he should depart MHFM. His lawsuit clearly made this allegation, and we always denied it.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, 4/9/09: “42. On or about November 4, 2005, the plaintiff transferred 1,045,000 shares of Guinor Gold Corporation, valued at $1,233,100.00 to MHFM.
This transfer was made by wire from the plaintiff’s account number 506-66358-1-3 at TD Waterhouse, Inc. 43. The plaintiff retained sufficient assets to pay his capital gains taxes for 2005. 44. In the late-spring/summer of 2006, Frederick Dimond renewed his request that the plaintiff specify in writing the amount of the plaintiff’s transfers that must be returned to him if and when he left MHFM. 45. The plaintiff chose the amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand ($750,000.00) Dollars, executed a document stating how much would be returned to him on his departure from MHFM, and delivered it to Frederick Dimond.” In the following quote, you will see that Hoyle’s own testimony under oath destroys this claim. It proves that there was no document indicating that he would get $750,000 returned to him if he departed MHFM. Thus, his central claim about money that was supposedly owed to him is proven false by his own testimony.
Deposition of Plaintiff Eric Hoyle, Feb. 8, 2011, pp. 74-75: “Q. All right. Let’s just cut right to it. Your testimony was that in April of ’06 you reached some sort of understanding with Brother Michael about how much money you would get back if you left? A. Yes. Q. And you claim that he then instructed you okay, type up a document memorializing that? A. No, he didn’t instruct me to type it. And as it happened, I didn’t type it. Q. Did he ask you to anything, but it came into being by my writing it with my hand.
prepare it? Or how did it come into being? A. I don’t recall what he said about it, if Q. You wrote out an agreement that purports to indicate you’re supposed to get back seven hundred fifty thousand dollars if you left the monastery? A. That was the import of the document. I don’t know that it said that, but what it said was that Most Holy Family Monastery had received from me that amount. And I was given the understanding that it was to be the official record of monies received from me that, as a matter of policy, would be refundable if I were to depart. Q. Do you have a copy of that agreement? A. No. Q. Do you remember what it said other than what you just described? A. As best I recall, it didn’t say anything besides what I described. A. And you wrote it out longhand? A. Yes. Q. And you claim, then, that you signed it? A. I don’t recall. Q. Do you recall whether Brother Q. Now, take a look at paragraph forty-five of your Complaint that’s right in front of you.
Michael signed it? A. I don’t believe he did.
This is referring to that spring, 2006 time frame. You can look at paragraph forty-four right above it if you’d like. Okay? And it indicates with regard to your allegation that you were to designate money to be returned to you. You allege that you chose the amount of seven hundred fifty thousand dollars and that you executed a document stating that you would receive that if you left the monastery. Do you see that allegation? A. Yes. Q. As you sit here today, is it fair to say that you don’t remember whether or not you signed that document? A. No, I don’t recall for certain whether I signed it or not. Q. Do you have any copies of that document? A. Not that I know of.” First, notice that Hoyle contradicts his own Complaint by stating that Brother Michael Dimond did not instruct him to type the alleged document entitling him to $750,000. He also cannot remember whether Brother Michael Dimond said anything about such a document. Yet, his complaint stated that Brother Michael Dimond requested him to prepare such a document.