Float like a butterfly.
Sting like a bee.
Recent updates to Dolores-Maxwell.com. Newest first:
December 23, 2013 Minor updates and improvements to the Open Letter to Beauchamps Partners, 16 December 2013 published on 18 December, and after three years and at least three requests, Beauchamps Solicitors remains in violation of Section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994.
December 23, 2013 A disheartening report of Elder Abuse.
December 18, 2013 Athough unhappy legal clients are expected to flood the new regulator's office that may be set up, we predict it will be business as usual.
Caving in to intense pressure from the Law Society and others, Justice Minister (and solicitor) Alan Shatter has taken off the table the notion that solicitors should maybe not regulate themselves. We see the recent frenzy of activity by the Law Society as a PR stunt in their campaign to make sure little problems with solicitors remain “in the family.” We hope we are mistaken.
December 18, 2013 The Law Society's compensation fund has paid out €4.7m to some clients of yet another Irish solicitor who pulled the the all too common fleece and flee. Recently arrested in Brazil, solicitor Michael Lynn was a solicitor with over 150 bank accounts. Charming.
Disclaimer: Lynn's solicitor says he is innocent and that the €80m wasn't a theft; it was loans.
Meanwhile, the new EU Directive will hopefully make it harder for the Irish criminals who merely pull a runner within the EU.
December 18, 2013 Joe Bowe of Beauchamps Solicitors issues more buffoonery and lies. We call out the nonsense and see Saoirse's response in the Open Letter to Beauchamps Partners, 16 December 2013.
Keep 'em coming, Joe.
December 13, 2013 Another day, another solicitor accused of stealing from his clients. It's in Ireland, of course.
December 13, 2013 Added another audio clip to the Unfortunate Letter; concerning Bowe's view of his client and co-executor Ethan Maxwell and the administration of Dolores' estate.
December 11, 2013 We note that Beauchamps Solicitors is still in non–compliance (defiance?) of Section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994, over three years after Dolores died, despite repeated requests. WTF!?
December 11, 2013 John Cunningham's email box is now saying that he still works for Beauchamps Solicitors, but some or all of his files are now handled by other solicitors. Requests by Dolores' beneficiaries for information about solicitor/executor Cunningham have been met with silence. Curious.
November 26, 2013 John Cunningham, formerly of Beauchamps Solicitors, a solicitor/executor of Dolores' estate, has left her beneficiaries yet another reason to be concerned about the administration of Dolores' legacy. Cunningham, who worked for Beauchamps for over thirty years, recently departed from Beauchamps without informing the beneficiaries of either his whereabouts or his contact details. Although Cunningham's box was accepting emails on Friday, 22 November, emails to Cunningham are now auto–returned with the response: “I no longer work in Beauchamps.”
That now makes two out of three executors (Cunningham and Ethan Maxwell) who cannot be contacted. It is now over two and a half years after the grant of probate.
The third executor, solicitor Joe Bowe of Beauchamps, has a long history of ignoring the beneficiaries. The Private Clients section of Beauchamps describes its service this way:
“At Beauchamps, we simplify matters by minimising any inconvience, delay and general concern you may experience…”
November 12, 2013 Essay marking the three year anniversary of Dolores' death.
Three Years On
November 12, 2013 We have talked about Ireland's Freedom of Information law before. Born feeble and ill in 1997, crippled in 2003, it now seems it will be effectively euthanised by “last minute” amendments.
Excellent coverage from reporter Gavin Sheridan of The Story:
Killing Freedom of Information in Ireland
Why amendment to charge for multi-part FOI requests was not last minute
Department of Public Expenditure & Reform plays fast and loose with the facts on FOI
Minister Howlin’s crazy briefing note on fees
National and International NGOs oppose Ireland's FOI fees
Ireland's FOI law was enacted 231 years after a radical new Swedish government, convinced that only transparency could deal with the corruption that was looting the Swedish state and society, passed the Freedom of Information Act.Highlights of Sweden's FOI:
- All documents within the public sector are in the public domain—people can actually check and hold the people in power accountable for their actions
- You don’t have to tell why you want to see a document and you don't even have to give a name
- You can read official letters before they arrive in politicians' intrays
Yeah, kinda hard for a government to hide corruption in that scenario.
|Sweden ratified its first Constitution in 1719.||Ireland ratified its first Constitution in 1922.|
|Sweden has a population of 9.5 million||Ireland has a population of 4.7 million|
|Google.com search "government scandals sweden"
6.01 million results
|Google.com search "government scandals ireland"
21.7 million results
Ireland, FFS, the light is your friend. Seriously, go to the light.
November 10, 2013 We are pleased to report that Dolores' case has been assigned a PULSE number by the Gardai. The PULSE (Police Using Leading Systems Effectively) system is basically a database. The system came online in 1999. The Crime Victims Helpline describes the PULSE number as “the computer generated number allocated to the crime/incident in the Garda computer system. This number enables Gardaí to access information on the current status of the case and the progress of the investigation.”
It becomes especially handy when crimes have occurred in a number of different Garda jurisdictions; if an investigation involves crimes committed in, for example, Bray, Rosslare, Finglas, Blackrock, The Docklands, Wexford, Walkinstown, and so on, they are all put under the same file and this is then accessible to the Gardai throughout Ireland.
We will publish the PULSE number when appropriate.
The Gardai have been apprised of the recent information referenced in the October 30 update. Sadly and predictably, information has also recently come to light of an individual who is being subjected to Ethan's abusive tactics at the present time. This information has also been forwarded to the Gardai.
October 30, 2013 We have been informed that the Gardai's decision whether or not to investigate the death of Dolores Maxwell is still ongoing. We have also been informed that recent, pertinent information has come to light and will be forwarded to the Gardai. We expect this information to add further impetus to a positive decision by the Gardai. We hope to publish this information, or some form of it, in a week or two.
September 13, 2013 Further to our last update, which addressed the tiresome mantra of Beauchamps' Private Client solicitor Joseph Bowe
(which we sometimes refer to as
“The Beneficiaries of Dolores' Estate Are Not Clients Chant.”):
In addition to the High Court and Law Society contradicting Mr Bowe's increasingly tedious incantation, we've been informed that The Solicitors Accounts Regulations, 2001 is also incompatible with Mr Bowe's oft–stated view:
“client” includes the personal representative of a client and any person on whose behalf the person who gave or is giving instructions was or is acting in relation to any matter in which a solicitor or his or her firm had been or is instructed; and includes a beneficiary to an estate under a will, intestacy or trust; and also includes any person on whose account a solicitor receives, holds, controls or pays clients' moneys in the course of and arising from his practice as a solicitor;
We also note that Beauchamps Solicitors stands in violation of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994, Section 68 which states:
68.–(1) On the taking of instructions to provide legal services to a client, or as soon as is practicable thereafter, a solicitor shall provide the client with particulars in writing of–
(a) the actual charges, or
(b) where the provision of particulars of the actual charges is not in the circumstances possible or practicable, an estimate (as near as may be) of the charges, or
(c) where the provision of particulars of the actual charges or an estimate of such charges is not in the circumstances possible or practicable, the basis on which the charges are to be made,
by that solicitor or his firm for the provision of such legal services and, where those legal services involve contentious business, with particulars in writing of the circumstances in which the client may be required to pay costs to any other party or parties and the circumstances, if any, in which the client's liability to meet the charges which will be made by the solicitor of that client for those services will not be fully discharged by the amount, if any, of the costs recovered in the contentious business from any other party or parties (or any insurers of such party or parties).
That this obligation applies to solicitor/executors such as Mr Bowe was made crystal clear by High Court Judge Nicolas Kearns in his 2010 Condon–v–Law Society decision.
Mr Bowe has in fact not provided any written estimate of the charges or basis of charges for administering Dolores' estate. Nor has anyone else from Beauchamps.
Mr Bowe did give Saoirse a verbal guideline (during a recorded meeting in the boardroom of Beauchamps), which would place the cost of Beauchamps “professional services” somewhere in the neighbourhood of €5500 to €6000.
And no, we have not forgotten the tens of thousands of Euros of Dolores' estate that so far have missed being accounted for.
Nor have we forgotton the five years of Dolores' phone records that Saoirse was able to get released from the phone company which Mr Bowe refuses to let the beneficiaries have sight of. Instead Mr Bowe makes spurious statements that the “phone records may be deemed to be assets of Dolores' estate” !!! But Mr Bowe, assets of an estate are supposed to be given to the beneficiaries. Um, that's the point of the whole thing.
Mr Bowe's refusal to release these records (days after his recorded statements that he would have no problem with any beneficiary seeking those records or giving them authority through the executors to do so) necessarily leads to speculation that the phone records add even more support to Saoirse's contention that Mr Bowe was accepting and acting on instructions from his client Ethan Maxwell concerning the affairs of his client Dolores Maxwell, to her great detriment.
It wouldn't be the first time Mr Bowe took and acted on instructions this way, which led to his recent chastisement by the Supreme Court.
It's all just so very curious. Stay tuned.
September 10, 2013 Sigh… We have been given sight of a recent letter to Dolores' beneficiaries authored by Joseph Bowe of Beauchamps Solicitors. Although we take issue with many of the items in this correspondence, we feel compelled as a matter of public interest to comment on one particular statement from Mr Bowe's letter of 20 August 2013:
We once again (this is where the sigh comes into it) take time away from working on other aspects of this site (work which currently entails publication of the Alternate Views page) and deal with this mantra that has been expressed so many times by Mr Bowe.
Mr Bowe, along with his colleague John Cunningham, are solicitor/executors of Dolores' will. The third executor certainly has a history of posing as a solicitor, but is not. That would be Ethan Maxwell, Dolores' youngest son.
Because Mr Bowe and Mr Cunningham are solicitor/executors, Mr Bowe's assertion that he and Mr Cunningham do not act for the beneficiaries is just plain silly. It is also in opposition to both the High Court and the Law Society of Ireland.
In 2010 (prior to Dolores' death) Judge Nicolas Kearns made this clear in his Condon–v–Law Society decision. A short excerpt:
The logic of defining beneficiaries as clients is that, for the purposes of the 1994 Act, the solicitor must be treated as though he were taking instructions from them.
The definition of ‘client’ in s.2 of the Act of 1994 not only addresses the usual position of a person who by giving instructions to a solicitor becomes a ‘client’, but, much more significantly, extends the definition to include a beneficiary to an estate under a will, intestacy or trust.
The Law Society's Code of Conduct (see page 26, Section 2.2) says this:
A solicitor should also take into account that in certain circumstances the courts have held as a matter of law that a duty of care is owed, not just to a solicitor's own client, but to a third party, such as an intended beneficiary of a will.
The Law Society wrote it up in their magazine The Gazette of July 2010.
This assertion by Mr Bowe was also dealt with in Saoirse's Further Affidavit to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
And in the Open Letter to John White Part 3.
We think anyone considering appointing a solicitor to administer their will would do well to ascertain the views of the solicitor and firm regarding the firm's perceived responsibility to the beneficiaries of their estate. As Judge Kearns remarked in his decision, the beneficiaries “are the persons for whose benefit the professional services are provided.”
September 05, 2013 Dealing with sexual predators, a A Tale of Two Cities:
No surprises here.
September 02, 2013 We present a three step proposal to streamline the justice process in Ireland. It does away with messy and extraneous things like the Gardai, juries, and judges.
Imagine someone is accused of a crime spree lasting some number of years involving various violent acts, insurance fraud, theft, forgery, etc. Now let us present our "Three Steps To Justice" program:
1. Choose a specific timeframe that avoids the majority of the perp's crimes.
2. Assign the investigation of this narrow timeframe to the perp's solicitor.
3. The perp's solicitor then makes a determination whether his/her client even
commited any crimes.
Note: This would be even more effective in those cases where the perp's solicitor is also accused of complicity in his client's crimes.
Pretty simple, no? We didn't actually think of this interesting path to justice ourselves, we admit. It was only after gaining sight of a recent proposal by Beauchamps Solicitors to address the perjury, conflict of interest, financial misdealings, misappropriation, unaccounted for funds and all the rest that make up the shambles we refer to collectively as “The Administration of Dolores' Estate” that we realised that the above scenario is a quite good analogy of Beauchamps' proposed course of action.
What's that you say? Conflict of interest? Well, um, you're obviously forgetting that this is Ireland.
We have asked some legal experts what they thought of this scenario, and they have responded with the following audio clip (for those of you not using Internet Explorer 9.0 or below):
We couldn't agree more. Stay tuned.
August 19, 2013 We've recently received information regarding two previously unknown events (to add to all the ones we already know about) where Ethan was draining Dolores' financial accounts shortly before her death. One while she was admitted to Wexford General Hospital during September 2-9, 2010, and the other while she lay in WGH during her final hospitalisaton. Both involve multi-thousand Euro amounts. Saoirse will seek to have both returned to Dolores' estate. They will be reported in detail on this site as time and resources allow.
August 19, 2013 If anyone has documents or accounts that may be added to the information soon to be given to the Gardai, we've established a cut-off time of 9:00pm Irish time (4pm EDST) August 22. As always, any information is welcome at any time. Submissions
August 19, 2013 Thanks to Anonymous for the account of Ethan's use of Dolores' Disabled Parking Blue Card.
August 18, 2013 Today marks the third year anniversary of Conor Maxwell's attempt to visit his mother Dolores. On holidays in Ireland, he and his family could not contact Dolores because of Ethan's isolation of Dolores and the absolute control of her phone and whereabouts that he had established by that time. Dolores had suffered a "fall" ten days earlier in Ethan's sole presence, resulting in a broken shoulder and facial injuries. We will publish details of this when we return to the narrative of Dolores' Last Year.
In the meantime, we wanted to make note of Conor's unsuccessful attempt to see Dolores which resulted in a letter being issued to him on Beauchamps Solicitors' headed paper the following month. We note the date of the letter corresponds to the same day that Ethan had Dolores' land line disconnected, and had a new number assigned to her line. He told no one of this, especially not the Public Health Nurses who were beginning to show quite an interest into his relationship with Dolores.
Although we believe this letter to be an outright forgery because of the misspellings, tortured grammar, lack of a legible signature and a bunch of other anomalies, surprisingly enough solicitor Joseph Bowe (who simultaneously represented both Dolores and Ethan!) assured Saoirse that this letter was indeed issued from Beauchamps, although he refused to say on whose instructions or even identify the author. Queries to Beauchamps' partners have also gone unanswered. Curious.
August 17, 2013 We've added some audio to our August 02 Update, for those of our readers not using Internet Explorer 9 and under.
August 17, 2013 Note to Anonymous who emailed us at approximately 11:30pm Irish time on August 16: We very much appreciate the information you provided and hope that the information provided on this website is a help to you and those around you.
As we write this update, Saoirse is preparing information to be given to the Gardai, at the Gardai's request. If you or anyone around you has information regarding abusive or intimidating behaviour, any knowledge or documentation of financial irregularities or abuse of position or access, please consider sending that information to this site, for forwarding on to Saoirse. Any information would be extremely helpful. Even information such as Ethan using Dolores' Blue Card to park in Disabled Parking spots (as he is known to do) would be helpful.
We will not publish information provided by you unless we have received permission from you. We take the privacy of our readers and sources seriously. We protect our sources, and it helps us to do so when our sources use the Submission Page which offers a way to send information anonymously.
For an additional layer of protection, we highly recommend and encourage the use of
the Tor Bundle when sending sensitive items to us.
August 09, 2013 Snapshots of Ireland, for those who couldn't partake of The Gathering:
To start, there's a nice Op-Ed piece by Fintan O'toole in the Irish Times:
"Ten Things You Can Do In Ireland That Almost Certainly Won’t Land You In Jail"
Number 6 is certainly alive and well in Dolores' case.
“A country that can’t enforce its own laws against acts that cause immense damage to citizens is not merely not a republic – it’s not even a functioning State. And only a dysfunctional State would be refusing to talk about the catastrophic failure of its legal system.” - Fintan O'Toole
Of course as we've previously reported, “justice” in Ireland doesn't mean you won't go to jail for some offences, say littering or failing to pay a dog licence or other such thing;
7,467 people found that out for themselves in 2012.
In fact the State seems particularly sensitive to the vast numbers of the hardened criminals who didn't pay their €160 TV licence on time. So sensitive, in fact that they launched 11,500 prosecutions in the courts against those who failed to pay their TV licence on time in 2012.
Goodness. What a shower of eejits, as they say. It's a bit Irish.
August 02, 2013 Regular readers may recall our update of March 09 2013, in which we published Saoirse's 2nd and 3rd letters to Beauchamps Solicitors Managing Partner John White. On that page, entitled An Open Letter to John White Part 3, we also reported on other disturbing events that had come to light regarding the administration of Dolores' estate by her three co-executors, Joseph M Bowe, W John Cunningham (both of Beauchamps Solicitors), and Ethan Maxwell. We reported that we had received information indicating that at least one of the executors was using Dolores' estate to pay for his personal liabilities and that one of the executors is claiming expenses and being “reimbursed” for items that Dolores paid for (or was forced to pay for) months before she died. We stand behind those statements now nearly five months since we first reported them.
There is now more unfortunate information to report on that front. Our thanks once again to Anonymous who has provided recent documents concerning Beauchamps' representation of the Maxwell family.
Some of these documents concern the “Cash Account” prepared by Joseph Bowe for (eventual) dissemination to Dolores' beneficiaries. The record of the cash accounting has yet to be released to the beneficiaries, well over two years into probate and well over a year since Dolores' last asset was sold. There has been no explanation for this from the executors of Dolores' estate.
It has been over a year since Joseph Bowe informed the beneficiaries that Dolores' house had been sold and wrote the following: “Some final bills associated with the sale have yet to come in. I expect to have them shortly. Thereafter, I will be preparing a cash account, covering both the sale and the administration generally, and then sending it out to you and your siblings.”
The documents we are relying on originated from Beauchamps. We have crunched the numbers every way we can, and have taken into account every contingency that we could think of that might be at play here, and no matter which way we look at it it seems that tens of thousands of Euros from Dolores' estate have somehow missed being accounted for. Literally tens of thousands.
We hope that it is perhaps an oversight that will be corrected “in due course” (to borrow a phrase from Mr White). Or perhaps there is a more recent "Cash Account" that we haven't seen that does reflect these unaccounted for funds. We have no reason to think so at the present time, because we can't understand how Dolores' estate could be generating tens of thousands of Euros in charges due 2 1/2 years after she died.
The Cash Account we were provided with certainly seems to be more of an exercise in obfuscation rather than a simple, clear and transparent accounting of money in and money out – things are lumped together in various places with no indication what the lumps are actually composed of – but as we say, no matter how we parse it we are led to the same unfortunate conclusion.
Perhaps Dolores' beneficiaries have no cause to be concerned here. Joseph Bowe, in a recorded meeting with Saoirse, promised full disclosure concerning the cash accounts. It doesn't seem to us to be an extraordinary thing to provide that but rather the minimum that would be expected from any fiduciary relationship– but especially given Ethan's attempt to fleece Patrick Maxwell's estate in 2006. Mr Bowe is well aware of his client's unfortunate history in that regard.
Joe: Ethan is not entitled to any profit or payment for his role as executor, he is entitled to (Unintelligible) expenses…
Joe: …for being executor. And he will probably put forward a bill for visits to this office when he has to sign papers…
Joe: …but, it will be (Unintelligible). Rest assured he's not paid or received no profit for his executor role.
Saoirse: Now, on those, is there a way the rest of the family can get full disclosure?
Joe: Of course. But, (Unintelligible) there's a limit to what (Unintelligible) should be (Unintelligible)
Joe: But you are a residual beneficiary in this estate, (Unintelligible), you will be given an account from Beauchamps that I prepare, showing this is what we started with, this is what we paid out, this is what we collected in, this is what we got left, this is how it (Unintelligible) out. You and all your siblings have to approve that.
Joe: Now if you (Unintelligible)
Joe: I'm sorry, would you really want to go and get all that, now I'll give them to you…
Joe: …because if Ethan says he's out 500 euro and he vouched for it all, that's what he'd be paid…
Joe: …but I mean, you know, I think you could be probably looking for that level of detail, like a (Unintelligible) I should say it…
Joe: …(Unintelligible) allow the executors to have some common sense in this, when I say executors, I mean John Cunningham and myself…
Saoirse: But both of you (Unintelligible)
Joe: Yeah. You have the right to approve the account; you won't sign off on this administration until you're happy, after everyone's been paid, correctly, and not (Unintelligible)
Saoirse: Yeah, yeah
Joe: (Unintelligible) you're entitled to it!
Saoirse: Well, and you'll keep an eye on his expenses as…
Joe: Rest assured! (Unintelligible) because I don't want someone coming back to me and saying it shouldn't be done.
Saoirse: Yeah, only because, again, of Uncle Paddy's and the…
Joe: I know that. Yeah, I understand. I think things might be slightly different this time, because it's a different set of beneficiaries, I mean you will be approving the accounts before we (Unintelligible)
Saoirse: Before. OK, ok.
Saoirse: So, full disclosure.
Saoirse: Now, what are Beauchamps' rates?
Joe: Yeah. Well, I'm too cheap for starters, that's a fact. The fee for this will be…
We note that in John White's “Response” Mr White said he was “…satisfied that Joseph has at all times acted honourably and honestly throughout this matter. I am also satisfied that the service provided by the firm was of a high level in line with appropriate standards.”
Curious. We find ourselves well short of satisfied. On the other hand, we have reason to be marginally more hopeful that this whole sordid mess will unravel. Stay tuned.