THIRTY SEVEN
Dolores Maxwell.com
 

Lying is a delightful thing
for it leads to the truth.

1  —Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

separator

Update 1 – 19 March 2014

Update 2 – 21 March 2014

Update 3 – 01 April 2014   A Closer Look at The Fake Document

separator

Start Seeing Seniors...#WishConnect from Wish of a Lifetime on Vimeo.

separator

Tl;dr version:

Beauchamps 1, Law Society 0.

Memo to the Law Society– Repeat after us: “The VAT rate in 2010 was not 23%, the VAT rate in 2010 was not 23%, the Vat rate…”


separator

[Editor's note: This page is quite long. Presenting this sort of information in a clear, concise, well–supported way is a non–trivial task, and something we are always trying to get better at. Please bear with us. Suggestions? ]

Nine days after the Law Society received Saoirse's complaint, the Law Society Complaints Executive Martin Clohessy sent a letter to managing partner John White of Beauchamps Solicitors, making enquiries, as it were. And of course, as we saw in Part 01, he sent Saoirse a letter the same day , 05 February, 2014, informing her he was making enquiries of White. White handed all four complaints into the hands of solicitor/executor Joe Bowe.

After receiving the complaints from White, Joe Bowe fired off a letter to the beneficiaries on 07 February that included the curious “cash accounts” of Dolores' estate. You can see the cash account and the issues raised by it here: Joe, There You Go Again

Then, on 11 February, Bowe sent all the beneficaries a letter. All the beneficiaries except Saoirse, that is. Note the heading at the top of the page.

[Editor's note: Not one of these eight beneficiaries thought it prudent to send Saoirse a copy. WTF? When Saoirse learned in March that Bowe had sent a letter to them, she asked six them for a copy. Two copied her on the letter from Bowe.

Bowe included a letter he claimed to have sent to his client and co–executor Onan Maxwell on 22 December 2010, which detailed the expected costs of administering Dolores' estate. This was presented to the beneficiaries as a Section 68 letter. This letter is a fake, an illusion, a fraud. Far from being written in 2010, it was actually created on 10 February 2014, as shown in Joe, There You Go Again. And um, Joe? The VAT rate in 2010 was 21%, not 23%. That didn't happen until 2012.

After sending off the letters to the eight beneficiaries, Bowe sent the Law Society a letter the same day:

11 feb 2014:

Bowe's statement to Clohessy that “…I am giving you copy [sic] of the letter that I sent the Complainant's brother, Onan Maxwell, on 22nd December 2010.” is a lie. That letter could not have been sent in 2010.

On 19 February White sent a letter to Saoirse, enclosing a fasified copy of Bowe's fake 22 December 2010:

From White

The next day, White wrote to the Law Society. In his letter, White also enclosed a copy of the letter to Saoirse.

White's

In his letter White, to no surprise, lies like a cheap rug.

This statement by White to the Law Society is a complete fabrication:

“As you would have noted from the Section 68 letter, it was clear from an early stage in the administration that it would be impossible to determine a fixed fee for the work and we would have to charge on a time basis.”

White is of course referring to the implied threat to unspecified beneficiaries in Bowe's fake Section 68 letter, and the same threat directed solely to Saoirse in the falsified fake Section 68 letter sent to Saoirse.


separator

[Editor's note: White's statement is not even close to reality. Having reviewed once again the extensive documents and hours of recorded meetings from before, during and after that December 2010 date, there is no other conclusion than that statement is absolutely unsupportable. If this statement were true, then by definition Bowe lied dozens of times (as if his long list of lies needs to be added to) in the early days of the administration of Dolores' estate and before.

We'll expose this lie to clear analysis in “Content and Context” section of Joe, There You Go Again. That section is not yet published, as we are finding it difficult to keep up our reportage of real–-time events. In the meantime, here's a taste, from transcripts of recorded conversations with Bowe between two and six weeks after 22 December 2010:

Joe: Now, I don’t have my time on this yet, but I hope I’m not going to have a bill based on time, because I think it would be crazy. Do you concur?

separator

Joe: It may sound corny, but I think I have some duty to your mother not to be wasting money on this.

separator

Joe: But I’m not going to charge on the time I’ve spent on this, just because we’re in different economic conditions.

separator

Joe: You can give me argument, but Onan has no incentive to keep costs down.
Mari: Yeah
Joe: I mean if there’s 30 or 50 thousand spent on legal fees he’s going to be happy.

separator

Joe: I mean with Onan, you can understand, I, I’ve, I don’t mind saying I had to write to him during the week and say, I mean, it’s just really impossible now with him.

Stay tuned. ]


separator

This statement by White is also unsupportable:

“To the extent and irrespective of whether Ms. Maxwell had received the Section 68 letter in December 2010, the outcome would have been the same.”

Lie:

“Mr Bowe fully accepts that he owes her a duty of care. What he has tried to make clear to her on many occasions is the advisability of of her taking separate independent legal advice in relation to the issues she has raised.”

Lie:

“It must be appreciated that the primary clients of this firm are the Executors of the Will of the late Dolores Maxwell and we can only take instructions from them alone.”

So White contends that the primary clients of Beauchamps are Onan Maxwell, Joe Bowe, and John Cunningham. Put another way, Beauchamps' primary clients are Onan Maxwell and Beauchamps. Charming. Although we admit that Onan Maxwell's interests have been put well ahead of the interests of the beneficiaries of Dolores' estate time and time again, White's contention is not true. This line of reasoning was trounced by the High Court in 2010, in the Condon–v–Law Society decision. Judge P. Kearns specifically said that the beneficiaries “are the persons for whose benefit the professional services are provided.

With his statement White joins Joe Bowe and Onan Maxwell on the list of those who lie so often that they can't keep their stories straight. His statement above directly contradicts his statements in a 27 November 2013 letter to Saoirse, as he and Bowe got together to try to intimidate Saoirse from collecting €19,000 from her mom's estate, paid to her over two years previously (see The Unfortunate Letter):

White

So which one is it? Either White once again is lying to the Law Society, or his attempted intimidation of Saoirse is exposed. Which is it, John? Either way, all we can say is well–played, sir, well–played indeed.

We actually expect this statement from White is most likely true:

“I met with Onan Maxwell on 12th February and he confirmed to me that he did indeed receive the Section 68 letter dated 22nd December 2010.”

We imagine it went down something like this:

John: So Onan, repeat after me: “I received the Section 68 letter dated 22nd December 2010.”
Onan: I received the Section 68 letter dated 22nd December 2010.
John: I heard you say, “I received the Section 68 letter dated 22nd December 2010.” Do you agree?
Onan: Sure, why not?

Unfortunately for White, perhaps because he had the received the “File Closed” signal from the Law Society, he would give some more information about his dealings with Onan Maxwell and the false Section 68 letter, as we shall see.

separator

On 04 March 2014, Law Society Complaints Executive Martin Clohessy gave Bowe and White some good news, although he did give a gentle clarification to White:

LS to Bowe LS to White

Martin Clohessy also wrote a letter to Saoirse on 04 March, which she received on 06 March. She was informed that “As you are now furnished with costs information in relation to the administration of your late mother's Estate, I have now closed my file.” He further explained, in answer to one of the questions she had posed, that he had sent the four separate complaints only to John White, managing partner of Beauchamps, because all four complaints concerned the same lack of a Section 68 letter:

Response 01


The result was not unexpected. Saoirse considered Clohessy's explanantion of why he sent her four complaints to managing partner John White less than satisfactory. Two of those complaints, aimed at solicitor/executors Joe Bowe and John Cunningham, dealt directly with the lack of a Section 68 letter. The other two, about John White and Private Clients head and partner Kathy Irwin, dealt with their failure to properly supervise the solicitors under them.

Saoirse expected her complaints to go to each solicitor; indeed the Law Society itself clearly explained that's the way it worked.

She also had good reason to want those complaints to go to each solicitor. She no longer trusted White and Bowe, having been lied to so many times. It was especially important that John Cunningham personally answer the complaint, because she thought that Cunningham may very well have effectively pulled a runner. He is certainly not working as a solicitor in the Republic of Ireland, although that does not effect his position as an executor of Dolores' estate.

On 06 March, 2014, White wrote to Saoirse. Although he refers to Saoirse's letter to the partners (excluding managing partner White) on 04 March, it seems that he was unaware that the fake and falsified Section 68 letters had been exposed. Perhaps the partners only read portions of Saoirse's letter to White, and withheld other parts. We don't really know.

In his letter, White refers to the meeting he had with Onan Maxwell:

White again

So now its “Dear Mari”? Cute. Although we appreciate White's gentler and more personable salutation to Saoirse it quickly evaporates upon reading the content of his letter.

Every indication at the present is that John White, Onan Maxwell, and Joe Bowe conspired to lie and pass off fake and falsified documents to the Law Society and the residual beneficiaries of Dolores' estate. The question of course is why? Why not give the beneficiaries a genuine Section 68 letter, albeit over three years late? We doubt the Law Society would do anything to Beauchamps because of it.

For one, a past president of the Law Society works in the very same Family Law unit that Bowe and Cunningham do. Or at least Cunningham did— he is no longer a solicitor. And for two:

Beauchamps is a firm of 70 or so solicitors, and the Law Society doesn't exactly seek sanctions against many solicitors of large firms. Curious, indeed.

The Law Society's response is troubling in many aspects. Even if Bowe had provided Onan Maxwell with a Section 68 letter in 2010, why did the Law Society blithely accept that a copy of that “Section 68” letter sent to the beneficiaries three years later is even close to adequate? Especially with the implied threat that Beauchamps will have to start charging by the hour because beneficiaries are asking questions and demanding that they do their job, did the Law Society consider that an estimate three years old might not be relevant today? No, no, of course not.

Yet the Law Society cautions their members: “Be aware that failure to issue a revised letter, when this should have been done, is viewed as coming within the definition of ‘inadequate professional services’ in terms of conduct.” Curious.

Did it occur to the Law Society that one of these revised Section 68 letters might be called for after over three interminable years of administration in this estate? Of course not.

But of course, there never was a Section 68 letter in 2010.

Then again, we don't think it right to expect the Law Society to notice any differences in the two “identical” copies of the same letter sent to them. Because nothing really jumps out. Oh wait…

side by side

Actually, it's so obvious from even a reduced, low–res image that Mr. Magoo could have seen it.

Well, look. Perhaps we're being a tad bit harsh. It's not like the Law Society ever had a solicitor back–dating a bogus Section 68 letter before. Oh wait…

Solicitor Eddie McGarr made up a Section 68 letter that was back–dated ten years in response to a complaint to the Law Society. McGarr's unfortunate client was informed that the Law Society saw no further basis for his complaint. After all, his solicitor had informed him at the outset how much the whole thing would cost. The Law Society would do no more. File closed.

A tribunal later found Eddie McGarr had gamed the Law Society with a fake Section 68 letter: “The respondent solicitor misled the Law Society that he had sent a Section 68 letter when…he had not and in so doing caused the Law Society to dismiss the complaint of the applicant.” Story here.

separator

As you would expect, Saoirse took some exception to the Law Society being so easily fooled by these unsophisticated fake letters. She wrote to Complaints Executive Martin Clohessy on 06 March 2014, the day she received Clohessy's “File Closed” letter:

ATTN: Martin Clohessy
Your REF: S9168/772/B/1/6

Dear Mr. Clohessy:

I've received your letter dated March 4, 2014 and enclosures, also noting you've now closed your file.

I believe you may want to re-examine the Section 68 letter sent by Joseph Bowe to Onan Maxwell dated Dec. 22, 2010. Then examine the same Section 68 letter copied to you from John White also dated Dec. 22, 2010 and also addressed to Onan Maxwell. Two different versions of the same letter, and both created in 2014, not 2010.

I am also copying you on my correspondence sent to the GSOC, Garda Commissioner, Wexford Garda Superintendent, Wexford District Superintendent and Alan Shatter TD, all 23 partners of Beauchamps Solicitors, and others.

The Law Society is aware of my previous complaint with the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribune in relation to many concerns about this firm, conflict of interest, fraud, theft and more.

I would urge the Law Society to consider investigating this matter. I can assure you, I will keep pushing for accountability.

I have also copied this letter to www.dolores-maxwell.com

Best,

Mari Maxwell

Saoirse's emailed letter was opened on Friday, 07 March, leading to speculation here of an interesting weekend for Mr Clohessy. He should have a fairly broad understanding now of John White, Joe Bowe, John Cunningham and Onan Maxwell. We'll see if he takes exception to being played like a violin. As of the end of the day on Monday, 10 March, the silence is deafening.

As far as the “others” that Saoirse sent information to about these fake documents, well, we're not saying anything, for now.

separator

Sadly, our prediction in January of the outcome of Saoirse's complaint came true. We think we are entirely justified in our habit of occasionally referring to the Law Society of Ireland as the

Solicitors Trade Union for Protection, Insulation, and Defence”

separator

Update 01: 19 March 2014

The Law Society has responded to Saoirse's letter informing them that Beauchamps Solicitors had given the Society fake and falsified documents. The response was entirely predictable. The letter, dated Wednesday, 12 March (which Saoirse received on 18 March), follows:

Law Society Letter

The Law Society seems to have no issue with having complaints answered with fake and falsified documents—at least when those documents originate from their members.

Nor is this a peculiar or atypical response by the Law Society. On 21 August 2012, after being informed that they had been shystered by false, backdated documents from solicitor Eddie McGarr, the Law Society responded:

“As I’m sure you are aware, perjury is a criminal offence and not something we can investigate by way of a complaint.”

The Society had precisely zero concern that it had ruled on a complaint on false information. In effect, it washed its hands of the whole affair. As it has done here with Saoirse's complaint.

“…if there is a prosecution, please inform me at that time.”

Charming. Well played, sir. We can obviously count on the Law Society to do nothing about these ever–mounting, blatant crimes–as predicted. Let us offer a paraphrase of what we view this letter to be saying:

“Fake, falsified documents from our member solicitors are good enough for us, and they are damn well good enough for some nosy b**** from a
god–forsaken, savage place like Connemara.”

Indeed.

And so, after more than three years of requests, and at least two complaints to the Law Society, Beauchamps Solicitors remains in violation of Irish law, enumerated in the Solicitors Act 1994, Section 68. Dolores' beneficiaries have suffered through Beauchamps “working” on Dolores' “insignificant” estate for over three interminable years with absolutely no idea what Beauchamps will attempt to charge for their “professional” “services”.

It's just another example of the paddywhackery only to be found in the dysfunctional and corrupt country known as Ireland.

[Editor's note: We understand another complaint may be in the works. We'll openly report that as it develops. Check our Recent Updates page or  for the latest. ]

separator

Update 02: 21 March 2014

Among other entities, Saoirse informed An Garda Síochána's Assistant Commissioner for the South Eastern Region about the fake and falsified documents produced by Beauchamps Solicitors in the estate of Dolores Maxwell. A response letter was written on 18 March, 2014, and received on the 21st:

Garda response


Of course, Saoirse had sent the information to the Wexford Superintendent as well, but we have seen previously that having the Commissioner's Office involved can be helpful.

We're not sure what this letter means, but we are resisting the temptation to get excited. Our best guess is that it means very little if anything. We will happily stand corrected.

We do expect, at the least, that the information has been entered into the PULSE system under Dolores' case number.

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