Peter D Jones State Solicitor Mullingar

[wppdf id=’1570′]

click on Image Above

Peter D Jones State Solicitor Mullingar

Peter D Jones State Solicitor Mullingar Threatens 84 Yr Old

Peter D Jones of Peter D Jones & Co Solicitors Mullingar why do you act for Robert B. Marren Solicitor Mullingar? Surly Mr. Marren a solicitor of the highest integrity and respected as an honest and upright person should be able to stand up and act for himself against 84 year Old Elderly Michael Gavin of limited means as you so put it above in your April fools letter.

The Justice for Michael Gavin group would disagree with you, that the PEACEFUL protests they are conducting in relation to Mr. Marren’s functions as administrator / solicitor are unwarranted and unfair. 

We do not agree with your statement that every opportunity was afforded prior to the distribution of the estate to challenge him in relation to his intention to distribute the estate in accordance with the rules of intestacy.

As far as we are concerned if Mr. Robert B. Marren did his job as appointed by the high court, there would be no need to challenge him in the first place. However after numerous attempts were made to put a halt to Mr. Marren distribution of the estate assets in isolation to well found objections, Mr. Marren your client threatened elderly Michael Gavin and widowed sister Eileen Linney. Mr. Marren Solicitor refused to pay out Michael Gavin and his sister Eileen Linneys share of the proceeds from the land sale despite the fact that he had same in his possession for nearly 2 years. He went on to threaten them that he intended to distribute the Estate Assets if they did not hire a Solicitor to issue proceedings to prevent him doing so despite their founded objections, namely €116,789.11 compensation for minding the animals for 9 years and the amount awarded to each for the land sale was short €12,500 each plus interest from the time Mr. Marren Received the funds.

Instructions were given to Tony Henry Tormeys Solicitors Athlone through their family Solicitor John Glynn Patrick Hogan & Co. Ballinasloe, to engage with Mr. Robert Marren on their behalf. However Tony Henry, Tormeys Solicitor did not undertake these instructions, nor did he inform them. So Michael and Eileen did not realize what had happened until the deficient checks arrived in the post.correct

What signage are you referring to that has been placed on poles around Mullingar which is totally incorrect unfair and untrue?

Mr. Peter D Jones of Peter D Jones & Co Solicitors Mullingar, why did your client Robert B. Marren

  • Deprives an elderly farmer  the grant money’s paid down from the Dept. of Agriculture. John Glynn Solicitor estimated Michael is owed over €116,000 for 9 years minding the farm Animals?
  • holds onto the funds from the land sale for nearly 2 years, and then finally awarded to Michael Gavin and his sister €12,500 plus interest less than what we were each entitled to ?
  • Not provide an invoice for Willie Penrose’s opinion when the estate was charged for same?
  •  Squander the estate assets and hire an additional accountant at a cost of €8,751.45 to the estate
  • not provide a “detailed bill of costs” for his fee of €40,892.53 he awarded to himself.
  • not provided a bill of costs for T & N McLynn Solicitors, Athlone, paid an amount of €38,941 a year prior to closing. They brought Mike to the High Court 3 days attempting to sell the roof over his head.
  • not seek a court order to determine how the estate should be administered when their were well founded objections
  • follow the instructions of Katheen O’Keefe and Anne Sanford and treat them as his clients, when in fact they were beneficiaries of the Estate the same as Michael Gavin and Eileen Linney?

We take exception to you threatening tone of your letter and your remark that “Mr. Michael Gavin is an elderly man and no less than anybody else is a person of limited means”. We have every right to peaceful protest outside Mr. Robert B. Marren’s Office and your office for that matter Mr. Peter D. Jones State Solicitor and we will continue to do so until justice is served.

Why have you  and Mr. Marren waited until now to object to our campaign for justice. We wrote to your client on  11/07/2015 and informed him that

“In the event that the Law Society of Ireland does not accept that our 8 complaints of inadequate professional services, alleged over charging and misconduct, warrant investigation we have every intention of referring this matter to the independent Adjudicator, the solicitors disciplinary tribunal Dublin , An Garda Síochána and the Health Service Executive HSE. Although this whole matter is a source of embarrassment to us, we will have no hesitation in disclosing same in the public domain, as it is our belief that the general public have a right to be made aware of the events that took place and let them judge for themselves based on the true facts.

Peter D. Jones of Peter D. Jones & Co Solicitors Mullingar your client Mr. Robert Marren Solicitor has no one to blame but himself and his aroganct reluctance to respond to our correspondence.

Your client Mr. Robert B. Marren  may also recall a letter was also sent to your office in Mullingar on 17TH of June 2015 stating the following;

“I take issue with your reluctance to provide a detailed breakdown of how the figure of €40,892.53 representing fees paid to Robert Marren & Co. were arrived at. I also feel I am entitled to a breakdown of all other fees paid out of the Estate funds and who was paid what at closing.

I also take issue with your persistent reluctance to provide the following

Bill of Cost for T & N McLynn, Solicitors, Athlone

Correct invoice for Catherine O’Conner. Her invoice states Total Amount Due €584.25 while Cash Account dated 18th July, 2014 “Fees paid to Catherine O’ Connor €6,857.25.

Invoice for William Penrose B.L. or explanation of why his opinion was sought.

Invoice for John Dolan Auctioneer and breakdown of the handsome fee he was paid.

Answer to “has John Glynn, Hogan & Co. Ballinasloe been paid to date, and if not why not”?

Answer to “has John Glynn, Hogan & Co. Ballinasloe been paid to date, and if not why not”?

Any outstanding bills.”

We have yet to receive a response to that letter above which we sent register post notwithstanding the fact that these questions were posed to you in previous correspondence numerous times prior and regardless we have a right to be furnished with copies of same. Your client Mr. Robert Marren will note that points 5 and 6 of that letter of 17TH of June 2015, are one in the same and we underlined if not why not”? in an effort to draw his attention to same which apparently he had yet to do.

Why were we not provided with a  Bill of Cost for T & N McLynn, Solicitors, Athlone who we were informed was paid their handsome amount of €38,941.00  approximately a year prior to your finalised distribution during the Christmas period 2014-2015.

When exactly was T & N McLynn, Solicitors, Athlone paid and why were they paid in advance of the finalised distribution while you refused to pay our 1/6 share of the land from auction or fees to Patrick Hogan & Co.??

Mr. Marren your client did not seek our approval for T & N McLynn, Solicitors bill nor did he request if we objected to same after they represented the other side beneficiaries who put the Estate of our late brother Patrick Gavin to enormous legal expense with their High Court Special Summons where they sought to sell the roof over Michael Gavin’s head among other things.

“By notices in writing Kathleen ‘OKeefe, and Mary Theresa Harte have confirmed their desire to have the house and lands of the estate sold. Nicholas Duffy and his four children have also confirmed that they desire to have the property sold. It is also the wish of the Plaintiff that the property be sold.”

Bearing in mind that the beneficiaries namely Anne Sanford, Kathleen O’Keefe, Mike Harte, Brenda Harte Waters, Michelle Harte, Philomena Duffy, Patrick Duffy, Catherine Duffy and Noel Duffy and their Solicitor T & N McLynn were well aware that Michael Gavin was entitled to live in the home for the rest of his days per his father’s will which they were all furnished with a copy of. As we recall we were required to attend the high court on 3 separate days, the first of which none of the beneficiaries attended. On the second day we were informed by our barrister Donal Keane B.L. that they were in another room arguing amongst themselves, and then finally we got before the judge on the third day. This is just one of the numerous examples of their vengeful, spiteful behaviour where they squandered the Estate assets. Not to mention the inconvenience, and additional expenses that were incurred to hire a man to mind the “Estate Animals” for 3 days, there was no mention of any funds to cover that cost in your finalised distribution.

On another occasion which we kept your client Mr.Marren update on, we recall one of the beneficiaries Kathleen O’Keefe rushed us into signing a lease agreement on 27th August, 2014 without providing us an opportunity to read over same carefully or to consider the matter. Consequently we were forced to get legal advice in order to amend a number of the conditions including Michael Gavin’s agreement to “having fully restored the lands to grassland by ploughing and reseeding by no later than the 31st of July 2015.” Lands that were never used for tillage, and even if they were who would commit to a short term 1 year lease with that condition. This appears underhanded to us and highlights the inadequate professional service provided by their Solicitor T&N McLynn, Athlone. It is not of a quality that could reasonably be expected of a solicitor and served no purpose other than to force us to incur additional unnecessary expenses for legal advice to draft letters in response to the lease agreement Kathleen O’Keefe tricked me Michael Gavin into signing.

Your client Mr. Marren has yet to provided the correct invoice for Catherine O’Conner. Her invoice states Total Amount Due €584.25 while Cash Account dated 18th July, 2014 “Fees paid to Catherine O’ Connor €6,857.25.

Your client Mr. Robert B. Marren did not seek our approval for seeking William Penrose B.L opinion. No Invoice for William Penrose B.L. or explanation of why his opinion was sought.

Your client did not seek our approval for John Dolan Auctioneer. No Invoice for John Dolan Auctioneer and breakdown of the fee he was paid was provided to us to date.  As we recall the auctioneer John Dolan did advertise the auction extensively and I recall full and half page ads appeared in the local newspapers.  We would argue that based on the amount of interest and bids made at the auction that these ads served no purpose other than to promote John Dolans Auctioneering service as a whole. To be honest a free mention in the local parish newsletter would have sufficed.

Your client did not seek our approval for Damien Hannigan & Company Limited Chartered Accountant, Mullingar. Why was he hired against our explicate wishes to oversee the accounts of Catherine O’Conner. He charged in my opinion an excessive fee of €8,751.45 which we consider to be extremely expensive and an unnecessary expense.  Although he was hired to oversee the accounts his fee is in excess of Catherine O’Conner’s fee. John Glynn, Solicitor, Patrick Hogan & Co. did not put the Estate to the additional expense of hiring an additional Accountant so it begs the question why did your client Mr Robert B. Marren?

It would appear that there is a personal axe to grind between your client Robert Marren and John Glynn, Solicitor, Patrick Hogan & Co. and your client had no business drawing us into his own personal battles between members of his own profession.

Mr. Peter D. Jones of Peter D. Jones & Co Solicitors Mullingar, in our opinion it would be more befitting of your client to write to each of the beneficiaries namely Anne Sanford, Wesley, Mass USA, Kathleen O’Keefe, Glanmire, Cork, Mike Harte,Wesley, Mass USA, Brenda Harte Waters Quincy, Mass USA, Michelle Harte Wesley, Mass USA, Philomena Duffy Mayo, Patrick Duffy, Clare, Catherine Duffy, Monksland, Athlone and Noel Duffy, Athlone, as I have done  and claw back the monies owed to us.

They cannot on the one hand expect to receive the monies from the sale of my late brother Pat Gavin’s livestock together with the gross payments received from the Department of Agriculture, without incurring any expense for the minding, looking after and caring for the animals down through the years.

Catherine O’Conner’s Account Summary 24/02/2012 shows that throughout the entire farming period between 2005 and 2012 the cattle sales came to a figure of €46,589 and the expenses came to a figure of €45,918. Accordingly, the expenses in running the farm were almost equal to the proceeds of sale of livestock. Therefore the profit from the farming operation represented the monies received each year from the Department of Agriculture under the single Payment Scheme, the Disadvantaged Area Scheme and any other Schemes of the Department of Agriculture, less any income tax payable to the state arising out of the farming operation.

We and those we have spoken to in relation to this matter FAIL to see the logic to your reluctance Mr. Robert Marren to see reason in this matter, how do you expect a person to labour for free for 9 years at their own expense and pay vets fees and fodder to fatten cattle so that those THAT DO NOTHING can reap the rewards of the GROSS profits. I Michael Gavin believe with every bone in my body that I am entitled to be paid for the work done and services rendered and monies expended by me in looking after my brother’s livestock from the time my brother died up to the time the animals were sold, this you will appreciate involved the daily herding and looking after the animals to include feeding of the animals in Winter months to include purchase of food stuffs and discharging vets fees etc.

By denying me Michael Gavin a half share in the profits it means that Michael Gavin WAS WORKING FOR NOTHING over the years in question from October, 2005 through to 2013. This is totally unjust and totally unacceptable to us.

We will not accept the present situation which is totally unfair and leaves Michael Gavin without any compensation whatsoever for the time and trouble in looking after the animals on behalf of the estate and also deprives Michael Gavin of any profit he may have earned in the rearing and looking after his own animals.

The detailed breakdown of the net amount €116,789.11 due to Michael Gavin out of the Single Payment Entitlements representing his ½ share in the profits from farming the lands, was  sent to your client Mr. Marren, Solicitor, on the 5th of December, 2015 for his consideration. You will note that all that Michael Gavin is looking for is his fair share of the profits in the running of the farm and fair compensation for the work Michael Gavin did in looking after the animals.

It would appear that your client Mr. Robert Marren delayed making the decision regarding Michael Gavin’s share in the farming profits and rightful share of the grant monies received from the Department of Agriculture until the very end with the draft distribution account that contained countless errors on 18th September, 2014. Michael Gavin was lied to countless times and led to believe that he would be refunded at closing by some of the beneficiaries. Why did your client Mr. Robert Marren make a decision around March 2013 to accept Michael Gavin’s claim to owning half the livestock and all the sheep? But yet for no logical reason refused to award him the net amount €116,789.11 due to Michael Gavin out of the Single Payment Entitlements representing my ½ share in the profits from farming the lands, which was also sent to your client on the 5th of December, 2015 for his consideration. There is no good reason why your client took advantage of Michael Gavin’s good nature and delayed his decision in this matter until the end.

Your client would have received a letter from Michael Gavin on 5th December, 2014 stating;

“If a fair allowance is not made on an agreed basis, I will not give my consent to any distribution account prepared by you. Similarly, my sisters will also have to agree before a distribution account can be finalised and a distribution effected. Accordingly you as Administrator will be unable to distribute the estate unless you can procure agreement between us and, if this agreement is not forthcoming, I am advised the only way you, as Administrator, can be protected is to go back into Court and get a Court Order directing how the estate can be distributed.

However your client Mr. Marren passed the book to us and demanded court proceedings to prevent the distribution in a short space of time over the Christmas period 2014-2015.

We believe that your client Mr. Robert Marren should NOT have finalised the distribution without addressing our objections, and it appears he did same to avoid paying our €82,500 1/6 share of the land from action in isolation to the rest of the estate.

While it would appear that these are matters that can only be dealt with by the court if they cannot be resolved by agreement I believe it should be the Administrator who goes back into Court to get a Court Order directing how the estate can be distributed not the ELDERLY BENEFICIARIES.

It would also appear that Mr. Henry of Tormeys Solicitors, Athlone facilitated your client Mr. Marren by not phoning  him or writing him immediately as requested by John Glynn Solicitor, (14/01/2015 John Glynn Patrick Hogan & Co. to Tony Henry Tormeys Solicitors, Athlone requesting him to ring and write a short letter to Mr. Marren immediately confirming that he would act in the matter in response to Marren’s threat to effect a distribution of the Estate.) nor did Mr. Henry of Tormeys Solicitors, Athlone inform us, so that we could engage another Solicitor to act on  behalf of Michael Gavin and Eileen Linney.

We have difficulty understanding why Mr. Henry of Tormeys Solicitors, Athlone failed to respond to correspondence, including correspondence that was crucial and significant to us.

At a subsequent meeting with Mr. Henry after your closing he estimated that court proceedings to sue you could take up to 3 years with fees in the region of €60,000 to €100,000, and he suggested that I Michael Gavin should take my age (83) into consideration.

It would appear you allowed confusion to arise in relation to the exact disbursement of funds and showed a complete disregard for the interests of the beneficiaries, whom you, Mr. Robert Marren a Solicitor, knew to be ELDERLY, and by your conduct is depriving two of the ELDERLY beneficiaries, of the enjoyment of their share in the estate. You have also forced Michael Gavin and Eileen Linney to incur additional unnecessary expenses in drafting documents and letters time and time again to prove their claim.

Bones of Contention

With Mr. Robert B. Marren Solicitor Mullingar

  1. Allowed confusion to arise in relation to the exact disbursement of funds held by him;
  2. Grossly delayed, without reasonable explanation, the administration of the estate, the deceased person having died in 2005 some ten years ago;
  3. Showed a complete disregard for the interests of the beneficiaries, whom Mr. Marren, Solicitor, knew to be elderly, and by his conduct is depriving two of the beneficiaries, of the enjoyment of their share in the estate;
  4. Provided an inadequate professional service and it is not of a quality that could reasonably be expected of a solicitor. There is no good reason why Mr Marren did not “bite the bullet” and pay over the full €82,500 when he received the funds way back on 27th of May 2013.
  5. Being reluctant to resolve the issue in isolation to the rest of the Estate;
  6. Not provided the detailed bill of costs to include a detailed breakdown of how the figure of €40,892.53 representing fees paid to Robert Marren & Co. were arrived at. The legal and auctioneering fees are excessive, and Michael Gavin and Eileen Linney should not be charged for same as the beneficiaries on the other side agreed to waive them. 05/07/13 Marron to Gavin and Linney enclosing copy letter dated 3rd of July, 2013 from T & N McLynn;
  7. Breached the following regulation of the solicitors’ account regulations, 2001: • Regulation 4(2): by failing without delay to pay monies held or controlled by them in respect of outlays not yet disbursed into client account and failing to treat such monies in all respects as client money;
  8. Breached the following regulation of the solicitors’ account regulations, 2001: Regulation 5: by holding monies to which they were beneficially entitled in a client account for longer than three months in respect of outlays already disbursed, or which should have been the subject matter of a bill of costs furnished to the client concerned;
  9. Brought the solicitors profession into disrepute;
  10. Denied Michael Gavin a share in the farming profits, to the extent that Michael Gavin was working for nothing over the 9 years in question from October, 2005 through to 2013;
  11. Provided an inadequate professional service and it is not of a quality that could reasonably be expected of a solicitor with regards to the explanation he provides to explain how he arrived at his decision to award the moneys received from the sale of Pat Gavin’s livestock together with the Gross payments received from the Department of Agriculture without deducting any expense for the minding, looking after, feeding and caring for the animals for the nine years from 2005 to 2014;
  12. Delayed making the decision regarding Michael Gavin’s share in the farming profits and rightful share of the grant monies received from the Department of Agriculture until the very end with the draft distribution account that contained countless errors on 18th September, 2014. Michael Gavin was lied to and led to believe that he would be refunded at closing by some of the beneficiaries. Why did Mr. Marren make a decision around March 2013 to accept Michael Gavin’s claim to owning half the livestock and all the sheep? But yet for no logical reason refuses to award him the net amount €116,789.11 due to him out of the Single Payment Entitlements representing my ½ share in the profits from farming the lands, which was also sent to Mr. Marren, Solicitor, on the 5th of December, 2015 for his consideration. There is no good reason why he took advantage of Michael Gavin’s good nature and delayed his decision in this matter until the end;
  13. Squandered the Estate assets by hiring an additional accountant against my wishes at a cost of €8,751.45;
  14. Accounting mistakes and lack of clarity;
  15. Forced elderly Michael Gavin and widowed Eileen Linney to incur additional unnecessary expenses in drafting documents and letters time and time again to prove their claim;
  16. Not furnished a detailed statement of all the legal costs to his client. Under Section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 provides for charges to clients. Under these provisions a solicitor should furnish a detailed statement of all the legal costs to his client;
  17. Not furnished a copy of Solicitor T & N McLynn’s Bill of Costs for the handsome fee of €38,941.00;
  18. Provided incorrect invoice for Catherine O’Conner Accountant. Catherine O’Conner’s invoice states Total Amount Due €584.25 while Cash Account dated 18th July, 2014 “Fees paid to Catherine O’ Connor €6,857.25;
  19. Not provided an invoice for William Penrose B.L. or explanation of why his opinion was sought for €1,230.00;
  20. Not provided an invoice for John Dolan Auctioneer and breakdown of the fee he was paid. Auctioneer John Dolan did advertise the auction extensively with full and half page ads in the local newspapers. However based on the amount of interest and bids made at the auction, these ads served no purpose other than to promote John Dolans Auctioneering service as a whole. A free mention in the local parish newsletter would have sufficed.

History of the case

Michael Gavin and his brother Pat lived together all their lives over 70 years in their humble home Dundonnell, Taughmaconnell in south Roscommon. After Pat died intestate, Michael Gavin continued farming and caring for the farm animals as he had always done.

The Department of Agriculture appointed Michael Gavin herd keeper for the animals after his brother’s death. Robert Marren Solicitor refused to award Michael compensation from the grant moneys paid down from the department.

If Michael Gavin did not continue the farming of the land then the estate would not be entitled to claim the Entitlements.

Michael Gavin offered to buy the farm from the next of kin beneficiaries, but they would agree to nothing and matters came to a head when under the guidance of Tony McLynn Solicitor Athlone they summoned Michael to the High Court in Dublin in an effort to sell the house along with the farm, making out that they would have difficulty selling the farm on its own. Their Solicitor Tony McLynn of T&N McLynn Solicitors, Athlone was well aware that Michael had a right to reside in the family home for the rest of my days as per my fathers will, but that did not prevent them squandering the Estate Assets. Three days in total were spent in the High court, the first of which they did not attend, the second they spent in a waiting room arguing among themselves and on the phone to other beneficiaries in the United States of America. Finally on the third day the Judge refused their request to sell the roof over his head.

The High Court appointed Robert Marren Solictor, Mullingar administrator for the estate. Subsequently Michael Gavin and his sister Eileen Linney had one and only one meeting with Mr. Robert Marren Solicitor at his office located on Castle Street Mullingar, at which he enquired if they had their wills made. He informed them he intended to hire an additional accountant to oversee the accounts. Michael Gavin and Eileen Linney profusely objected to this and told him it was an unnecessary expense for the estate, but he bulldozed ahead regardless.

The issue of non-payment of grants from the Department of Agriculture to Michael Gavin the appointed herd keeper eat up many a letter and despite the fact that 2 of his estranged sisters Anne Sanford, Wellesley, Mass USA & Kathleen O’Keefe, Glanmire, Cork promised to buy feed stuffs and also promised that he would be reimbursed at closing. Michael never got a cent and in essence he was forced to use my old age pension and savings to feed the animals that would have starved otherwise for 9 years. They had no objection to accepting the gross payments from the sale of the animals, and although Mr Marren “made a decision” to finally accept his claim to owning half of the cattle and all of the sheep he could not see the logic to paying out the grant monies associated with same.

The beneficiaries failed to accept that Michael Gavin is entitled to half the farming profits (i.e. half the net proceeds of the Department of Agriculture Grants from 2005-2013 inclusive, after deduction of Income Tax paid in respect of the joint farming operation) and/or in the alternative, fair compensation for work done and services rendered by me in looking after the deceased’s animals over the period.

How can the estate expect to have it both ways? Michael Gavin should be awarded either the grant monies paid by the Department of Agriculture for the nine years he looked after all the animals, or in the alternative Michael should be paid reasonable farm labours wages and refunds for the expenses incurred in running the farm as appointed herd keeper by the Department of Agriculture.

Anne Sanford, Kathleen O’Keefe and the next of kin namely Mike Harte, Brenda Harte Waters, Michelle Harte, Philomena Duffy, Patrick Duffy, Catherine Duffy Kelly and Noel Duffy cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand expect to receive the monies from the sale of my late brother Pat Gavin’s livestock together with the gross payments received from the Department of Agriculture, without incurring any expense for the minding, looking after and caring for the animals down through the years.

Catherine O’Conner’s Account Summary 24/02/2012 shows that throughout the entire farming period between 2005 and 2012 the cattle sales came to a figure of €46,589 and the expenses came to a figure of €45,918. Accordingly, the expenses in running the farm were almost equal to the proceeds of sale of livestock. Therefore the profit from the farming operation represented the monies received each year from the Department of Agriculture under the single Payment Scheme, the Disadvantaged Area Scheme and any other Schemes of the Department of Agriculture, less any income tax payable to the state arising out of the farming operation.

Those we have spoken to in relation to this matter FAIL to see the logic to the beneficiaries reluctance to see reason in this matter, how do they expect Michael Gavin to labour for free for 9 years at his own expense and pay vets fees and fodder to fatten cattle so that those that do nothing can reap the rewards of the GROSS profits. Michael Gavin believes with every bone in his body that he is entitled to be paid for the work done and services rendered and monies expended by him in looking after his brother’s livestock from the time my brother died up to the time the animals were sold, this you will appreciate involved the daily herding and looking after the animals to include feeding of the animals in Winter months to include purchase of food stuffs and discharging vets fees etc.

By denying Michael Gavin a half share in the profits it means that Michael Gavin WAS WORKING FOR NOTHING over the years in question from October, 2005 through to 2013. This is totally unjust and totally unacceptable.

Michael Gavin will not accept the present situation which is totally unfair and leaves him without any compensation whatsoever for his time and trouble in looking after the animals on behalf of the estate and also deprives Michael Gavin of any profit he may have earned in the rearing and looking after his own animals.

Please find enclosed a detailed breakdown of the net amount €116,789.11 due to Michael Gavin out of the Single Payment Entitlements representing his ½ share in the profits from farming the lands, which was also sent to Mr. Robert B. Marren, Solicitor, on the 5th of December, 2015 for his consideration. You will note that all Michael is looking for is my fair share of the profits in the running of the farm and fair compensation for the work I did in looking after the animals.

The lands were eventually auctioned and Michael Gavins 2 estranged sisters Anne Sanford, Wellesley, Mass USA & Kathleen O’Keefe, Glanmire, Cork placed the winning bid, however did not close in the required 30 day time frame. The 2 sisters got the consent from the remaining next of kin to waive their share, so they were required to hand over just 1/3 of the purchase money with the agreed condition that they would cover the expenses associated with the Property Auction. They visited with Michael twice and requested that he buy the property of them and then suggested they would put the land up for sale but never did.

Mr. Marren Solicitor refused to pay out Michael Gavin and his sister Eileen Linneys share of the proceeds from the land sale despite the fact that he had same in his possession for nearly 2 years. He went on to threaten them that he intended to distribute the Estate Assets if they did not hire a Solicitor to issue proceedings to prevent him doing so despite their founded objections, namely €116,789.11 compensation for minding the animals for 9 years and the amount awarded to each for the land sale was short €12,500 each plus interest from the time Mr. Marren Received the funds.

Instructions were given to Tony Henry Tormeys Solicitors Athlone through their family Solicitor John Glynn Patrick Hogan & Co. Ballinasloe, to engage with Mr. Robert Marren on their behalf. However Tony Henry, Tormeys Solicitor did not undertake these instructions, nor did he inform them. So Michael and Eileen did not realize what had happened until the deficient checks arrived in the post.

Michael and Eileen met with Mr. Tony Henry Tormeys Solicitors Athlone, some 2 weeks after, however he saw no fault in what he done or failed to do for that matter. He suggested they could engage him to sue Mr. Marren at a cost of up to €100,000, 3 years in court and advised Michael to take his age of 83 years into consideration.

Complaints were made to the Law Society of Ireland with regard to Mr Robert Marrens Administration of the Estate and Mr. Tony Henry Tormeys Solicitors Failure to undertake explicit instructions. Needless to say no fault was found. Then Tony Henry had a cheek to scribe the letter he did to Eileen Linney a defenceless widow. The letter arrived the day before the letter from the Independent Adjudicator’s who, no surprise found no fault in the manner in which the Law Society of Ireland dealt with the complaints made. Begs the question how come Henry knew before they did and why did he not act as speedily to undertake the instructions given him on their behalf originally?

Michael and Eileen were later informed that Robert Marren refused to pay John Glynn, Solicitor, Patrick Hogan & Co. until they stopped threatening him as he puts it by reporting him to the Law Society of Ireland. Also an activist via social media told them that Willie Penrose TD BL stated he had not received his payment from Robert Marren, Solicitor, Mullingar. When this was reported to the Law Society they threatened to block further emails.

Peter D Jones State Solicitor PENALTY POINTS

In a democracy, there is no uglier spectacle than the power of the State being used against its own citizens. In fact, it’s not even compatible with the notion of democracy.

In a democracy, there is no uglier spectacle than the power of the State being used against its own citizens. In fact, it’s not even compatible with the notion of democracy.

THE STATE Solicitor for Westmeath, Peter Jones, has avoided a possible total of eight penalty points being added to his driver’s licence because points were either terminated, court summonses were not served on him, or on one occasion, a case against him was struck out. The penalty points related to four separate occasions in which Jones was recorded as speeding on dates in 2011 and 2012.
Goldhawk has learned that in January 2011, Jones was recorded as speeding (doing 103 km/h in an 80 km/h zone) at the Chapelizod bypass in Dublin. He was liable to receive two points on his licence but the case against him was struck out in Dublin District Court. On 14 January 2012, at 4.36pm, Jones was once again recorded as speeding (doing 90 km/h in an 80 km/h zone) at Tullamore, Co Offaly, for which he was liable to receive two penalty points. However, those points were terminated. The reason given for the termination was that Jones was apparently en route to court
with prosecution fi les in an “urgent case.” That particular day was a Saturday, so presumably if Jones was on his way to an “urgent case”, the court hearing would have been an emergency sitting. Elsewhere, on 6 May 2012, Jones was recorded doing 102 km/h in an 80 km/h zone at the Lucan by-pass in Liffey Valley, Dublin, for which two penalty points could be added to his licence. However,
the summons for this offence – for which Jones was to appear before Dublin District Court – was never served. Finally, Jones was recorded speeding at the same area the following month – this time doing 101 km/h in an 80 km/h zone – and once again, he was liable to receive two penalty points
and appear before Dublin District Court. However, yet again, a summons was not served in the case.
Goldhawk contacted Jones – who practises as Peter D Jones in Mullingar, Co Westmeath – repeatedly over the last number of weeks to seek comment in relation to the penalty points. He refused to respond to these queries and last week, Goldhawk was told by a representative in
his offi ce that the offi ce “doesn’t deal with journalists.” The former Irish Independent journalist
Gemma O’Doherty had been planning on writing a story on Jones’s penalty points earlier this year and had submitted a number of queries to the legal eagle last May. O’Doherty was later selected for “redundancy” after she door-stepped Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan.

Peter Jones is the Fianna Fail appointed State ‪#‎Solicitor‬ for ‪#‎Westmeath‬. He is now more than 2 decades in this position. Peter Jones is a right wing conservative on moral issues and he has been against every piece of reformist referenda for decades, including the Divorce Referendum of 1995. Only a few years ago, Peter Jones had 8 PENALTY POINTS corruptly and illegally removed, a matter which appeared in the Phoenix Magazine at the time. Peter Jones is now threatening an 83 year old farmer (see print highlighted in yellow). Is it not enough for 83 year old Mike Gavin to have been defrauded of a large sum of money by Mr. Jones’s friend and fellow Mullingar solicitor Robert Marron? Is there nothing so low as to what the legal profession in Mullingar will stoop to? Just as you thought that they could not sink any lower by defrauding an elderly farmer, they are now threatening him.

PLEASE SHARE on your pages and
Please invite your friends.

Its time to put an end to Solicitor Financial Elder Abuse in this country!

Hail, Rain or Snow!
A Rolling Peaceful Protest will take place this
Friday 6th May 2016

Between Robert Marren Solicitors and Peter D Jones Solicitors Mullingar
11:30am to 3pm
to seek Justice for Elderly Farmer Michael Gavin who was tricked into minding the farm animals of his late brothers estate for 9 years.

Join Peaceful Protest Event  https://www.facebook.com/events/252454858438686/

Share Far & Wide

Thank YouPeter-Jones-Mike-Gavin-01-04-2016

Peter-Jones-Mike-Gavin-01-04-2016-p-2