Saoirse Maxwell
Redacted Co. Galway
MOB: Redacted
Email: Redacted

Dec. 5, 2011

Mr. Joe Bowe
Beauchamps Solicitors
Riverside Two
Sir John Rogerson's Quay

RE: Your Ref: JMB/OLM/MAX17/4
Dear Joe:

Thank you for the reply to my emailed letter of December 1, 2011.

I also thank you for doing what you could to ascertain whether the proposed purchaser is connected to the persons, solicitors' firms, or others I mentioned, and I understand your inability to provide me with your assurance that he isn't.

Being aware of the significance of November 30 to solicitors' firms and the recent Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal action, I thought the timing of this proposed purchase of Mom's house warranted clarification and transparency before I could honestly consider it.

Of course you do not need my input concerning Mom's house. This is merely a financial transaction, and my interest in it is much more how it relates to the very serious issues abounding here, and not whether it sells for €107,000 or €107.

You say in your letter, “Acting in the best interests of the estate and all the beneficiaries, the Executors will shortly make their decision.”

Joe, it grieves me to have to say that I consider it to be in my best interests to accept nothing you tell me at face value, but rather seek confirmation and verification. I believe to this date you have not acted in this beneficiary's best interests, and I question whether you have acted in the best interests of the other residual beneficiaries.

I fail to understand how it was in my best interest when you made many statements to me, statements that I can now only consider to be lies, regarding Mom's financial records.

When I developed information from a third party, which then was sent to you as Executor, you refused me sight of this information, despite your previous statements that you had “no problem” with any of the beneficiaries seeking such information, and would in fact provide the authority through the Executors for any beneficiary to do so. Once you had this information in your possession, instead of providing it to any of Mom's beneficiaries, you made a baffling argument that this information might “be deemed to be assets of the estate.” I fail to comprehend how refusing to provide this information or “asset” to Mom's residual beneficiaries is in their best interests whatsoever. Your actions and previous statements to me concerning this matter, statements that I can now only consider to be lies, of course lead me to speculate whether this information not only involves your co-Executor Ethan Maxwell as expected, but also Beauchamps Solicitors.

I cannot see how it was in the residual beneficiaries' best interests when you were informed of the statement by  Redacted  that he had never seen nor signed Mom's Will, along with  Redacted's  equally troubling statements, and you failed to respond to my query about this, and as you put it, the “serious issues” it raised. The fact that this Will was made a few days after a previous Will only added to the need for clarification, in my view. The last time I checked with the courts, there were no Affidavits of Attending Witness filed with the Probate Office, as I suggested it would be prudent for you to seek. I am not even sure if you notified all or any of the other residual beneficiaries of these “serious issues.”

Joe, when I discovered the existence of Mom's safe deposit in Wexford, and forthrightly gave you the information about it, you assured me there would be no problem at all for an independent party and myself to witness the opening of this safe deposit box. You were aware that some of my siblings had expressed a belief that Mom may very well have placed a letter, an account of Ethan Maxwell's abuse, or even a Will that superseded the one from June 04, 2009 in this box. I cannot see how it was in the beneficiaries' best interests when you travelled to Wexford a few days later and neglected to give the beneficiaries any notice or opportunity to be there to verify the contents of Mom's safe deposit box when you opened it. At the time, I reluctantly accepted your excuse that you “just forgot” to inform anyone. Given what has transpired since then, I think it is in my interest not to accept that excuse at face value. I am further unsettled by the varying descriptions you have given me of the contents of that safe deposit box.

I sincerely do not understand how it was in the beneficiaries' best interests when you were provided proof of your co-Executor Ethan Maxwell's unauthorised use of Mom's credit card, while she lay in the CCU at Wexford General, and you did not seek to have Mom's estate reimbursed for these charges.

I cannot see how it was in the beneficiaries' best interests when you were provided evidence of many tens of thousands of Euro of extremely questionable financial transactions in Mom's accounts and you refused to take any steps to investigate or understand them. I was very, very clear to you that I would gladly bear all the costs of doing this, and that any and all monies recovered would revert to Mom's estate for all the residual beneficiaries. This would not decrease Mom's estate by a ha'penny, and could very well substantially increase her estate to the gain of all Mom's residual beneficiaries. I do not understand how it is in the best interest of Mom's beneficiaries when you fail to respond to queries about this.

These are but a sample of the many serious questions that remain unanswered and compel me to refuse to take any statement or decision you make regarding the “best interests of the estate and all the beneficiaries” at face value. You state in your letter: “It may be many months before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal process which you initiated has been completed.” That is obvious. My goal as always is justice for Mom and accountability for your co-Executor, Ethan Maxwell. Many of the crimes I believe the overwhelming evidence indicates Ethan Maxwell committed against Mom have no statute of limitations. Time is much less important here than it was for Mom. The isolation, plundering and torture (physical and otherwise), that the evidence indicates your client Dolores suffered from your co-Executor Ethan Maxwell led inexorably to Mom's time running out on September 24-26, 2010. Even as your co-Executor was trying to destroy evidence, cover his tracks and hide the very fact that Mom was in the hospital.

I have a different view of who initiated the Tribunal process. I willingly and gladly gave you a high level of trust when Mom died, higher than most if not all of my siblings. I actively helped you when asked, and repeatedly and gladly offered my help to you in any way I could. When I came to the conclusion that you lied to me, and failed to act as you said you would, you shattered the trust I had so willingly instilled in you. In my own best interests I had to reassess every statement you made to me, every correspondence you had with me, indeed every piece of information I have in relation to your and W. John Cunningham's relationships with the Maxwell family, as far as I was able. In my view the Tribunal process was initiated by you, when you violated my trust. I merely provided the 537-page affidavit.

You state in your letter, speaking of the estate agents: “…they have confirmed that the current offer of €107,000 represents the market value of the property, they have no other offers despite their best endeavours…”

I cannot take this at face value. I have knowledge of a person from the UK with an interest in Mom's house (or at least a former interest) who said he emailed Kehoe, expressing his interest and enquiring about purchasing Mom's house. According to that person, neither Colum Murphy nor anyone else from Kehoe ever responded to him. In the meantime, this person's interest in Mom's house waned. In this economic climate, with Mom's house on the market for more than six months with few offers, I would expect that an Estate Agent's “best endeavours” to include answering an email. I would also expect their best endeavours to include a counter-offer.

I must correct your last statement in this letter to me, which reads:
“Finally, if you have any issues regarding the administration of the estate, can I advise you once again to seek your own independent legal advice, in your capacity as a beneficiary in the estate.”
You have never before told me to seek my own independent legal advice, in my capacity as a beneficiary in the estate.

In your letter to me of 13 October, you did say:
“In previous correspondence, you have outlined certain concerns you have in relation to the handling of your mother's affairs, both prior to her death and in the course of the administration of her estate. If you have not already done so, I would suggest that you now engage your own solicitor who could advise you separately in relation to these matters.”

Although I appreciate the gentler tone of your latest letter, I am entirely confused by these statements.
The High Court, as you no doubt know, unequivocally ruled in 2010 that beneficiaries of an estate are clients of a solicitor who is also acting as Executor, and so are afforded all the protection any other client would be entitled to.

I am your client, as are each of the other beneficiaries. You are my "own solicitor" as surely as if I had retained you to perform an undertaking on my behalf. I'm confused because I don't understand how and why my solicitor who is representing me in an ongoing matter, can tell me to get my own solicitor in relation to those matters while still representing me in those matters. I don't understand why my solicitor won't answer my queries about serious issues concerning this ongoing matter while he is representing me, his client, in this matter.

Joe, I trust you can understand from this letter why I am unable to consider and respond to statements and decisions you or W. John Cunningham make in regards to Mom's estate at present, unless they can be demonstrated to be trustworthy and verifiable. I am much more comfortable waiting on the outcome of the Tribunal before any further steps are taken in the administration of Mom's estate.

On another note, there is a financial account Mom had that I can't recall you addressing or mentioning. It is in the name of Ann Maxwell. It was active when she was in Rosslare; I don't know the status of it now or what it may contain at this point. I believe she kept it hidden from your co-Executor Ethan Maxwell so that she could have access to some of her money if an emergency arose.

I have recently been in contact with a friend, who it turns out, had sent a letter or card to me addressed to Saoirse Maxwell  Redacted, Dolores' address  last June or July. There is something of some importance to me in it. Please forward that to me along with anything else that might have been sent to me at Mom's house. I'm happy to bear the expense of doing so.


Saoirse Maxwell