THIRTY SEVEN
Dolores Maxwell.com
 
Cicero quote

New visitors to this site: We have prepared a short intro to this site that we hope will provide a bit of background. It takes about two and a half minutes to read. You can see it here.


separator

Update 1 – 06 March 2014

separator

Dolores Maxwell

separator

In February and March 2014, Saoirse received disturbing letters from Beauchamps Solicitors Managing Partner John White and Dolores' solicitor/executor Joe Bowe. Saoirse once again wrote to the 24 partners of Beauchamps (except for White) to raise her concerns.

We publish her lettter below in its entirety. Saoirse included supporting documentation in her letter. Saoirse quotes from these in her letter. You can see the documents she quotes from by using the links in blue. Links in green are added information, not included in Saoirse's letter.

We will most likely share our view of the situation in a short time, but many convergent threads are demanding our resources at present, so we will for the most part let Saoirse's letter address the present situation with Beauchamps Solicitors.


Bruno Herbots We are using the letter sent to Bruno Herbots, partner and head of Beauchamps' Construction and Procurement Group. We're not picking on Bruno; we just think he has a cool name. Mr Herbots has been described as “a young star with the ‘X’ factor in construction and procurement law”.

Plus anyone who can talk about “EIRs, BEPs, BIMs, and potential disaggregation of design responsibility” at Dublin Institute of Technology's School of Architecture has most definitely got it going on.

separator


Saoirse's letter:

Mari Maxwell, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Co. Galway
Email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PH: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
MOB: xxxxxxxxxxxxx

March 4, 2014


Mr. Bruno Herbots
Beauchamps Solicitors
Riverside Two
Sir John Rogerson’s Quay
DUBLIN 2

Dear Mr. Herbots:

Recent correspondence from both your managing partner and solicitor/executor Bowe
concerning Mom’s estate compels me to write to all of you once again, with serious concerns.

First of all, I am requesting an update concerning the application to the High Court
for Bowe’s co-executor Onan Maxwell to be removed as executor. Has an application been
made? If not, please explain why. As you know, the Hilary sitting of the court ends in less
than three weeks. My understanding is that an application must be made in the current sitting
for it to be heard in the next sitting of the court. In this case that is the Easter sitting. I want to
be informed of the time and date of the hearing in the Probate Court as I plan to attend if I am
able.

Bowe has made it very clear that his client and co-executor Onan Maxwell must be removed:

In his letter to the beneficiaries dated 20 August 2013 Bowe states (see attached, Att01):

Having taken Counsel’s advice, it has been decided that an investigation should be
undertaken with a view to gathering such information and documentation with regard to the
matters raised as can reasonably and without unreasonable expense be gathered.
Thereafter, it would be our intention to place this information and documentation before you
all whereupon you could express a preference as to whether the issues warrant further
investigation or whether the estate could be distributed without further enquiry
or proceedings against Onan. In the absence of unanimity, Counsel has made it clear that we
would thereafter have to apply to the Court for Directions.

As you are well aware, your brother Onan is one of the proving Executors of your mother’s
Will. Counsel has pointed out that he is “conflicted” (whether or not there is any truth to the
allegations made or whether or not he has any liability to the estate) because of the nature of
the allegations that have been made. The Executors are not obliged to litigate the issues
raised but they must consider whether they should be investigated and Onan cannot do that

Page 1 of 11

objectively. Therefore, we will be writing to Onan outlining the advice we have obtained
from Counsel and suggesting that he should consent to his removal as an Executor, in the
interests of finalising the estate. Because he has already taken part in the administration of
the estate, his removal will require liberty from the Court and this will in turn necessitate a
separate Court Application.

Again, in his letter of 30 October 2013, Bowe says this (see attached, Att02):

…a number of you have insisted that an investigation be undertaken regarding the “activity”
that occurred on your mother’s bank accounts in the years prior to her death. In particular,
allegations have been made that Onan misappropriated funds, some of which were used to clear his liabilities.

We have concluded that we cannot safely complete the distribution of your mother’s estate
without the Court’s imprimatur until the allegations made have been dropped or determined.

To enable you make a decision as to whether the allegations should be investigated further,
we are giving you bank statements for the three accounts your mother held prior to her death
(Ulster Bank, AIB and Bank of Ireland). Having reviewed same, could you please indicate
to us whether it is your wish that the distribution should be completed without further
investigation or proceedings against Onan.

Unless there is unanimity on this point, we have been advised by Counsel that we should
apply to the Court for Directions and this will involve, inter alia, the removal of Onan as one
of the acting Executors.

Bowe’s undertaking he gave to the beneficiaries in his letter of 23 December 2013 also confirms this (see attached, Att03):

In any event, and based upon the documentation furnished to date, we have been asked to
investigate the allegations further. The position is complicated by the fact that your brother
Onan is one of the “proving” Executors. In our view, he is clearly conflicted because of the
nature of the allegations that have been made. As a first step, and in line with the advice we
have received from Counsel, an application will have to be made by or against Onan for his
removal as an Executor. Even if he consents to so doing, we understand that it will be
necessary to seek the Court’s approval on the basis that he had “intermeddled” in the estate
in the sense that he was one of the parties who took out the Grant of Probate and has taken
steps in the administration of the estate.

As soon as Onan has been removed as Executor, the remaining Executors (Messrs Bowe and
Cunningham) will gather such further information with regard to the allegations raised as
can reasonably and without unreasonable expense be gathered. Once this exercise has been
completed, it would be our intention to place the information we have ascertained before you
all, including such further information as you yourselves may be able to provide. We would
intend asking you to direct us to any transactions you want investigated whereupon we will
request Onan for his comments in relation thereto. Thereafter, we will provide you with his
response for comment. Unless there is unanimity between the beneficiaries at that stage as

Page 2 of 11

to how the administration of the estate should progress, we have been advised by Counsel
that we will have to apply to the Court for directions.

Bowe, by his own admission notes ““…a number of you have insisted that an investigation be
undertaken…”
in his letter to the beneficiaries of 30 October 2013.

Why is Bowe now seeking to disregard the advice from Counsel? In his letter to the
beneficiaries of 13 February 2014 (see attached, Att04), when he (finally) provides one year
of statements from Mom’s credit card account, he writes:

Please let us know which particular transactions you wish us to raise with Onan.

Bowe has already received the information from the beneficiaries that would compel him to
make application before the High Court. Please compel your employee to fulfil his
undertaking to the beneficiaries.

I am also concerned on foot of a letter received 03 March 2014 from Bowe (see attached, Att05). In it he states:

On 30th October 2013, we sent you statements for the bank accounts which your late mother had
(with Ulster Bank, AIB and Bank of Ireland). On 13th February 2014, we included the credit card
statements. The documents were given to you so that you could decide whether you wanted an
investigation into the allegations of financial impropriety that had been made against Onan.

To date, there has just been a response from two of you. One made it clear that no investigation
was sought. The other has requested clarification on over 200 entries, including details of the payee
(on cheques and direct debits), locations for ATM withdrawals etc.

In the case of those of you who have not yet responded, we will assume that you do not wish for any
investigative work to be undertaken unless we have a response to the contrary within the next
seven days.

I object to any such attempt by Bowe to redefine the process that was laid out to the
beneficiaries, following the receipt by Beauchamps of advice from Mick Hourican B.L.

Beneficiaries have been waiting over two years for an explanation of the multi-thousand Euro
charge on the Inland Revenue Affidavit (sworn by Bowe) assigned to a company that never
did any work for either Mom or her estate. And now your employee thinks he can demand
information from the beneficiaries that was already given, and if he doesn’t hear from each
one within seven days, he will assume what? I reject any such notion and will not respond
to Bowe within seven days or any other timeframe he may conjure up. He is a liar and cannot
be trusted.

Once again: This 03 March letter is in conflict with Bowe’s previous letters. By Bowe’s own
account, Beauchamps has already received affirmation “from a number” of us that an
investigation into Bowe’s client Onan Maxwell and his plundering of Mom and Dad’s assets

Page 3 of 11

must proceed. Bowe’s attempt to refashion the process at this late stage is very disturbing.
There has been no indication that Onan Maxwell has been removed as executor, either by
Beauchamps or from the cases heard by the Probate Court to date. I still advocate in the
strongest possible terms that the scope of this investigation must start in 2004, and not merely
the last year of Mom’s life as the executors have arbitrarily decided.

Following the process explained in Bowe’s previous undertaking to the beneficiaries, I will
be glad to detail the many transactions on Mom’s credit card that she could not have possibly
made herself or are otherwise indicative of illegal activity, once Onan Maxwell has been
removed as executor. Ulster Bank has confirmed to me that Mom was the only one authorised
to use her card. To the best of my knowledge, Mom’s card was not on her person, in her
effects, or in her house. This also leads to the reasonable conclusion that Bowe’s client
and co-executor Onan Maxwell was illegally using Mom’s credit card even as he was stealing
tens upon tens of thousands of Euros from Mom’s other financial accounts.

In order to provide a focussed list of questionable transactions, I am once again requesting
that Bowe release to me the five years of Mom’s phone records that I was able to have
released to Mom’s estate by Eircom in 2011. In a recorded conversation, Bowe assured me
that he would give authority through the executors to any beneficiary who wanted to pursue
records such as these. Yet, when they were obtained, Bowe informed me that these records
“may be deemed assets of the estate” and would not be released until the executors met to
discuss it. Bowe has refused to comment on these records since he wrote that statement over
2 years and 7 months ago. Please compel your employee to release those records to me
and any other residual beneficiary who desires them. They can go a long way in placing Mom’s
whereabouts on specific dates, which would lead to more informed questions about credit
card and other financial transactions.

Again: Please compel your employee Bowe to follow the course of action described in his
letters to the beneficiaries of 20 August 2013, 30 October 2013, and 23 December 2013.

Bowe provided a “cash account” document in a letter dated 07 February 2014 (see attached,
Att06a and Att06b). Unsurprisingly, this “cash account” once again highlights Bowe’s sloppy
disregard for the administration of Mom’s estate. A number of serious issues are raised by
this “cash account.” Among these issues:

  • Bowe failed to include two of Mom’s assets that were entered on the Inland Revenue
    Affidavit. What happened to them?
  • The “interim professional” fees that he listed are far above what he stated they would
    be in a recorded conversation I had with him in 2011. A detailed, itemised accounting
    of the “professional” fees must be provided.
  • Interest on funds in Mom’s estate is only shown through 31st March 2012. Detailed
    bank account information needs to be provided. I am not prepared to take Bowe’s
    word on this.

Page 4 of 11

  • The late fee on the NPPR charges is unacceptable. This charge began in 2009. As a
    “professional” administrator it is inconceivable that Bowe and/or Cunningham would
    not ensure this was paid in a timely manner.
  • Attempting to charge Mom’s estate for “Counsel’s Fee” is unacceptable. This fee
    belongs to the solicitor/executors, as it is caused by their own behaviour and actions. I
    will vigorously oppose any such charge to Mom’s estate.
  • The fees paid to the estate agents are twice the normal going rate. An itemised
    accounting of their charges is required.
  • I note Bowe several times has tried to impress upon various beneficiaries the
    necessity of trusting the executors’ judgment when it comes to “unvouched
    expenses.” I was more than willing to extend that trust to Bowe and Cunningham
    from the outset. Unfortunately Bowe chose to flagrantly violate that trust in many,
    many ways. I no longer trust the executors’ judgment. I will vigorously oppose any
    unvouched expense, and will expect to see each receipt for “vouched” expenses. I
    note that Bowe is very aware of his client Onan Maxwell’s attempts to realise
    personal financial gain by submitting un-receipted expenses in the administration of
    Patrick Maxwell’s estate in 2006. (This happened shortly after Bowe’s attempt to
    facilitate his client Onan Maxwell’s efforts to have wealthy Patrick Maxwell
    declared a Ward of Court with Onan Maxwell as Sole Committee.)
  • I stand by my previous statements that one of the executors is using Mom’s estate to
    pay his personal liabilities, and that Mom’s estate is being charged for things she paid
    for in full (or was forced to pay for) months before she died. This must be addressed.
  • Bowe fails to show Mom’s financial account that is in her given name Ann Maxwell.
    He has known of its existence for over two years now. I would like to see an itemised
    accounting of the steps the executors have taken to locate this account.

Whether it is because Bowe is unable or unwilling to find the Ann Maxwell account, the
result is the same, and the beneficiaries of Mom’s estate suffer loss because of it. I am more
than willing to try to find this account. Please compel your employee Bowe to finally fulfil
his undertaking to me of 01 February 2011 in which he stated that he would provide authority
through the executors to me or any other beneficiary to seek Mom’s financial records. I will
not charge Beauchamps or Mom’s estate for this service, and do my utmost to locate Mom’s
assets that the executors have been unwilling or unable to find.

I received a letter from your managing partner on 19 February 2014 (see attached, Att07).
This letter also raises concerns. White includes a copy of a “Section 68” letter purportedly
sent by Bowe to his client and co-executor Onan Maxwell. That letter is dated
22 December 2010.

In his letter White says this:

I refer to your complaint to the Law Society in connection with a failure to provide a Section
68 letter. Our obligation is to provide a Section 68 letter to the executors and I enclose a
copy of the Section 68 letter posted to Onan Maxwell on 22 December 2010. This letter

Page 5 of 11

clearly sets out the basis on which fees would be charged. I should be grateful if you could
confirm that this addresses the substance of your complaint.

This letter is issued to you by way of information only. As set out above, when issuing
a Section 68 letter in the context of a probate, I am satisfied that our obligation is only to send
this letter to the executors.

White’s assertion that Beauchamps is only obligated to send a Section 68 letter to the
executors and not the beneficiaries of an estate is false. It flies in the face of the Solicitor
Acts, the High Court and the Law Society. For instance, the Law Society says this:

The Complaints and Client Relations Committee wishes to remind practitioners that the
definition of ‘client’ in the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 includes “a beneficiary to an
estate under a will, intestacy or trust”. Accordingly, beneficiaries are entitled to receive a
section 68 letter.

For the guidance of the profession, it should be noted that, when considering complaints from
beneficiaries who complain to the Society that they did not receive a section 68 letter, the
Complaints and Client Relations Committee acknowledges the distinction between those
beneficiaries out of whose share of the estate costs will be deducted (usually sole or
residuary beneficiaries) and any other class of beneficiaries.

Perhaps White and Bowe (who maintains the same view) consider themselves above the Law
and untouchable by the Law Society and High Court. Given that this is Ireland, this may well
be true. However as a partner who is liable for everything that happens at Beauchamps, I
think it important that you hear the sort of statements being issued during your watch and in
your name. For my part, I will continue to do whatever is within my power to make sure
these views held by White and Bowe are expressed openly.

In his letter, Beauchamps’ managing partner states:

I should be grateful if you could confirm that this addresses the substance of your complaint.

I cannot do that for four reasons:

  • White appears to be trying to circumvent the Law Society complaint process. The
    Law Society informed me that they would write to the named solicitors, and then
    forward their responses to me.
  • White continues to say I am not entitled to a Section 68 letter. He is wrong.
  • This purported Section 68 letter was not addressed to me, but rather to Bowe’s client
    and co-executor Onan Maxwell.
  • This purported Section 68 letter is a complete lie and falsification. It is easily
    and readily shown that this letter was not authored on that date in 2010.

Perhaps Bowe was inspired to backdate this letter a number of years by the antics of solicitor Eddie McGarr, who did the same thing and very nearly got away with it. Bowe doesn’t even come close to getting away with it.

Page 6 of 11

On 11 February 2014, Bowe sent a short letter to the residual beneficiaries of Mom’s estate
(see attached, Att08). He also included the purported Section 68 letter sent to Onan Maxwell
on 22 December 2010 in a Word document entitled BLANK LETTER.doc (see attached, Att09). As you see, Bowe did not send any of this to me. I have quoted his letter it in its
entirety:

The Residuary Beneficiaries
In the estate of the late Dolores Maxwell
(with the exception of Mari Maxwell)

11 February 2014

Our Ref JMB/OLM/MAX17/3

Your Ref:

RE: Dolores Maxwell Decd.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your sister Mari has lodged a new complaint with the Complaints and Client Relations Section of the Law Society. It has been filed against John White (our Managing Partner), Katherine Irwin (Head of our Private Client Department), John Cunningham (my co-Executor) and myself. Having perused the documentation forwarded by the Law Society (running to nearly 50 pages), the complaint is that a Section 68 letter was not issued under the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994.

To the extent that it is necessary under the Act and in compliance with same, I am giving you a
copy of the letter that I sent your brother Onan on 22nd December 2010.

Yours truly,

Joseph M. Bowe

BEAUCHAMPS

j.bowe@beauchamps.ie

Bowe states that he “…perused the documentation forwarded by the Law Society (running to
nearly 50 pages)…”

I note that Bowe mischaracterises my complaint. The complaint I filed against Bowe totalled
11 pages, consisting of the Law Society complaint form (4 pages), an email Bowe wrote to
my brother (3 pages) and my reply to the partners on foot of that email (4 pages).

I find it unusual that Bowe would be in receipt of the complaints against John Cunningham,
Kathy Irwin and John White. I filed four separate complaint forms, and I am sure the Law
Society expected they would be forwarded by White to the appropriate solicitors. Why did

Page 7 of 11

Bowe end up with all four? Why indeed was Bowe allowed to “peruse” all four complaints?
Has Ms Irwin even been informed that a complaint has been lodged against her?

I take it as a measure of his deceit that Bowe sent this letter and the purported Section 68
letter to all the residual beneficiaries (except for me) eight days before he sent me the
purported Section 68 letter.

Using the letter sent to one of my siblings as an example, I note that the purported Section 68
letter sent to Bowe’s client and co-executor was written not on 22 December 2010, but rather
on 10 February 2014 at 13:44. It was edited the following day (11 February) at 13:11. The
email to my sibling was sent at 13:52 on 11 February.

Bowe’s unparalleled dishonesty was revealed further when, eight days later, White sent me
the copy of the purported Section 68 letter. It is an open question whether White was a party
to this fraud.

Please compare the fourth paragraph of the purported Section 68 letter sent to my sibling, and
the fourth paragraph of the purported Section 68 letter sent to me.

The first one, sent to all the residual beneficiaries except me:

Taking into account the interactions that I have had with some of your siblings to date, it
seems quite likely that the work ahead of us and the time which we will actually spend on the
matter (as opposed to anticipated) may be completely out of proportion to the value of the
estate. With that in mind, it might be necessary for me to charge on a time basis (my current
charge out rate is €378 per hour).

The second one, which was sent to me alone, although supposedly the same letter, is a bit
different:

Taking into account the interactions that I have had with your sister Mari to date, it seems
quite likely that the work ahead of us and the time which we will actually spend on the matter
(as opposed to anticipated) may be completely out of proportion to the value of the estate.
With that in mind, it might be necessary for me to charge on a time basis (my current charge
out rate is €378 per hour).

I also note Bowe’s implied threat to the beneficiaries at large (in the 11 February letter) and
to me specifically, in White’s 19 February letter:

When we have fully completed the administration of the estate, it would be my intention to
refer my files to a Legal Cost Accountant who could then consider what the most appropriate
fee would be, taking into account the actual work done and time spent. In addition, I would
like to seek his advice as to whether all of the fee should be borne by the estate or whether
part thereof could be “levied” against any particular beneficiary whose conduct or action
led, directly or indirectly, to the additional work or time incurred.

I am curious. Is €378 per hour Beauchamps Solicitors’ usual and customary fee for falsifying
documents, or am I getting a special deal?

Page 8 of 11

As a liable partner, please inform the beneficiaries what you are going to do to address this
blatant act of fraud committed by Bowe (and quite possibly White)? Surely you will take
exception to such an outrageous and false act being perpetrated during your watch and in your name?

So, patiently, and now for the fourth time, I ask you as a liable partner to provide a Section 68
letter to me and the rest of the residual beneficiaries as required by the Solicitors Acts, and to
provide it immediately.

Once again: A complete and transparent breakdown of all professional fees charged to
Mom’s estate must be provided. Nothing else will do, given the abject lack of
professionalism exhibited by your employee Bowe.

To think that Bowe might be allowed to be the gatekeeper in the investigation of Onan
Maxwell’s plundering of Mom and Dad’s assets is laughable.

I again state that Bowe and Cunningham should be removed as executors and administrators
of Mom’s estate, along with Onan Maxwell. Independent administrators who will be honest
and transparent must be appointed.

There are many, many other issues regarding the administration of Mom’s estate that Bowe
has refused to acknowledge, let alone deal with. I will not press them further here. Nor will I
pursue action against Bowe for those false Section 68 letters or his repeated defamation of me
at this time. Yes, I am aware that he defamed me in his letter of 13 December 2013, sent to
my brother and then disseminated to my siblings (and that was certainly not the first time he
did so). Yes, I am aware that he defamed me to the Tribunal (under oath no less). I can only
imagine what he has said to you, but I do not want to distract from more important things at this time.

Your managing partner states that Bowe “…has at all times acted honourably and honestly
throughout this matter.” A much more accurate description of Bowe is that he is a serial liar,
perjurer, and has operated under a conflict of interest for years. It is undeniable. The fact that
Bowe is an unfaithful and untrustworthy steward of his clients’ assets and interests has been
shown by no less than the Supreme Court, as well as in his behaviour in the “administration”
of Mom’s estate. He should not be practicing law at all, in my view, let alone being involved
in Mom’s estate. Please, again, make sure he is removed from having anything more to do
with Mom’s estate. He is not serving you well, either.

The question that has been in my mind for some time (and I imagine in yours, also) is “why”?
Why is Bowe so willing to expose himself by repeatedly lying, perjuring himself, falsifying
documents, etc.? This estate is tiny compared to many others. Why is he so adamant that
none of the underlying issues be addressed or see the light of day? Why is he even now
attempting to avoid making application to the High Court? Why has his course of action been
so exponentially out of scale compared to the size of an estate he describes as “insignificant”?

Page 9 of 11

The only thing I can come up with is that he has a lot to hide that far surpasses what has
transpired in Mom’s estate. Then his actions make some sort of perverted sense. I think it
obvious that no one has called Bowe to task before, given his ineptitude at dealing with this
situation when he is exposed for his various deceits and lack of professionalism. Why not just
be truthful and do the right thing? It’s so simple.

I view Bowe and Cunningham as having had a long, free reign over their little fiefdom in the
Private Clients section of Beauchamps. I think the only other time there was an intrusion into
their little world was back in 2003 or so, when a female solicitor joined the Private Clients
section. She lasted three months, if I recall correctly.

And what shall I say of the elusive solicitor/executor Cunningham? First he states out of the
blue that he no longer works at Beauchamps. A few days later his mailbox says he does so
work at Beauchamps, but his files have been handed off to other solicitors. And then his
former clients are told contact another person altogether to find out which solicitor has taken
over their file. It’s all very weird. Bowe says Cunningham is still a valued member of
Beauchamps, but I suspect the truth is somewhat different.

As a journalist, I think I am somewhat skilled in finding answers to elusive questions. I do
hope you compel the executors to give me authority to look for Mom’s financial records. I
am all but sure I would be able to find Mom’s Ann Maxwell account, for the benefit of all
the residual beneficiaries. In the meantime, as this interminable process unfolds, I have been
busying myself as time allows with contacting other beneficiaries of estates that have been
administered by Beauchamps, collecting documentation, and finding out interesting things.

In April 2011, my brother xxxxxxxxxx made a complaint about the administration of Mom’s estate.
At that time, Bowe informed me that he might no longer be able to act in Mom’s estate:

On a more general note, I should mention that Beauchamps may no longer be acting in the
administration of your mother’s estate. Your brother xxxxxxxxxx has made unsubstantiated
allegations of negligence against our firm, not alone in relation to the handling of her affairs
prior to her death but also in the course of the administration of her estate (which as you
know is at a very preliminary stage).

Where an allegation of negligence has been made, we are obliged to report the matter to our
insurers (which I will be doing shortly). As a condition of maintaining cover, the insurers
would usually insist that we hand over the file to another Solicitor. I would prefer not to do
so (as I doubt if such action would assist the administration of the estate) but I will need to
follow their advices unless the allegation of negligence is withdrawn.

Has your insurance company been notified about the current mess? If not, please explain why
not. Shall I notify Allianz about my concerns?

Page 10 of 11

My motivation is steadfast and my goal remains unchanged – accountability for those who
treated Mom so horribly, and that her estate be made whole. I very much look forward to the
day when those goals are attained, and I can walk away from this sordid mess. Until then I
will continue to gather information from anywhere I am able, and continue pounding on
every door that I can.

I have sent this letter and attachments to every partner in Beauchamps (with the exception of
your managing partner). I have also sent this by post to Counsel Mick Hourican B.L, and
have sent it to Dolores-Maxwell.com.

Thanks for your time.

Best,

Mari Maxwell
Encl.

Page 11 of 11

separator


Update 1: 07 March 2014

We'll do a bit of analysis of the purported “Section 68 letters” sent to the beneficiaries by solicitor/executor Joe Bowe on 11 February 2014 (with the exception of Saoirse) and the “copy” of the same letter sent by managing partner of Beauchamps Solicitors John White to Saoirse alone on 19 February

.

According to Bowe and White, this is what happened:

  1. On 22 December 2010, Bowe wrote a letter to his client and co-executor Onan Maxwell, detailing how much he expected the administration of Dolores Maxwell's estate would cost. Bowe sent it to Onan Maxwell that same day. White states that Bowe posted this letter that same day.
  2. On foot of a complaint to the Law Society of Ireland, Joe Bowe sent a copy of this letter to the beneficiaries on 11 February 2014, with the exception of Saoirse.
  3. On 12 February, White met with Bowe's client and co-executor Onan Maxwell. White stated that Onan Maxwell “…confirmed to me that he did indeed receive the Section 68 Letter dated 22nd December 2010.”
  4. On 19 February White sent a copy of this letter to Saoirse.

Well, a letter was sent to eight beneficiaries and a letter was then sent to Saoirse. John White's dishonesty is revealed when he stated to Saoirse, “…I enclose a copy of the Section 68 letter posted to Onan Maxwell on 22 December 2010.” He made a copy, alright, but not of the letter Bowe sent to the other beneficiaries. You can view the two documents together here. Here's a few of the telltales:

Sample 1aSample 01b Example 2a
Example 2b
Example 3a
Example 3b
Example 5a
Example 5b

Example 4a
Example 4b
Example 6a
Example 6b
Example 7a
Example 7b
Example 8a
Example 8b

Example 9a
Example 9b
Example 10aExample 10b Example 11a
Example 11b

Unless John White has a copier that removes words, replaces words, and changes the spacing between some sentences but not all, he is a deceitful, dishonest, untrustworthy asshat. Bowe, in his correspondence, always uses the old school double–spacing that was taught decades ago. Whoever wrote the second copy appears to prefer the single–spacing, mostly.

Vat Rates Bowe wrote this letter on 22 December 2010? Funny how he quotes a VAT rate of 23%. That 23% VAT rate did not occur until 2012. Either White or Bowe changed it to the 21% VAT that was in effect in 2010 when the falsified copy of the false document was produced.

Our best guess is that White tried to “improve” Joe's work, but he couldn't make changes to Joe's fake and then save the Word file–can't take that risk. So: open the file, make the changes, print it out, close the file without saving it, stamp the printout as a “Copy”, send it through the copier, and use that to send to Saoirse. And White or Bowe just couldn't resist threatening Saoirse with being charged for all the extra work. Just a guess.

Oue second best quess (because of the spacing and “County vs. Co” issues) is that the letter was manually keyboarded from a printout of the first, without opening up the file. Lot of work for a solicitor to type one whole page and a bit; but he certainly couldn't take the risk of making a secretary do it.

White and Bowe are simply charming examples of the solicitor-class at one of the top ten firms in Ireland.

We have only looked at White's bogus claim of a copy being sent to Saoirse. We still need to talk about context and content. Stay tuned.

separator

[Editor's note: In the almost three years we have helped out on this site, we have been inspired by Saoirse's steady tenacity in her advocacy of justice for Dolores Maxwell. But it is her patience that we consider to be near to legendary.

Now, it might just be us, but with Saoirse's letter above, coupled with the one preceding it, we find ourselves wondering if that patience is perhaps undergoing a slight modification. Not that we would ever expect her to lose her patience, and indeed, in the past three years we have never known her to do so.

We really don't know what it would look like if Saoirse lost her patience. We're thinking maybe something like this:

US Gov't image

Perhaps Beauchamps may do well to pull their thumb out. Just sayin'… ]

separator

[Editor's note: As always, we seek and encourage anyone with knowledge of Dolores' life
and/or the events presented here to contribute to this site. Memories, anecdotes, photos and documents are more than welcome. Clarification, correction and alternative views are encouraged and welcomed. Submissions ]

TOP
separator

World Elder Abuse Awareness Day UN Declaration of Human Rights European Year for Active Ageing and Intergenerational Solidarity Towards a Society for All Ages