Crooked Solicitor2

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=90 BGCOLOR="#006699" TEXT="#080000" background="154fd5a3.jpg"> <div> <FONT SIZE="6" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>Phoney Titles of Nobility: British Feudal Investments, Ltd. Exposed</B></FONT><B>   </B></div> <bR> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000" background="155d2b03.jpg"> <div> <IMG SRC="157ae6c0.jpg" border=0 width="174" height="108" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> <B>Justice is one of the greatest and most beautiful things next to life itself and the glorious principle of freedom.</B></div> <div> <B>This website is dedicated to bring some very despicable men to justice.</B></div> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> Crooked Solicitor2</div> <div> <B>Unethical, Unprofessional, Unbecoming:  Roger Pitts-Tucker & Co.</B></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Phoney Titles of Nobility: British Feuda"><U>Home</U></A>  <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >I </FONT><A HREF="id48.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="News"><U>News</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id47.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Summary of Theft"><U>Summary of Theft</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id54.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Boadas Foul and Deceitful Claim"><U>Boada's Foul and Deceitful Claim</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id55.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Core Issue"><U>Core Issue</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id58.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Answer"><U>The Answer</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id19.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Website1"><U>Website1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id20.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Website2"><U>Website2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id21.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Revealing Article"><U>Revealing Article</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Deceptions1"><U>Deceptions1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id25.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Deceptions2"><U>Deceptions2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id40.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Deceptions3"><U>Deceptions3</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada1a.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Scams1"><U>Scams1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id27.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Scams2"><U>Scams2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id29.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Scams3"><U>Scams3</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada___roger_pitts_tucker.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Proof of Fraud"><U>Proof of Fraud</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id34.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Accomplice1"><U>Accomplice1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id50.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Accomplice2"><U>Accomplice2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada26.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Fake Titles"><U>Fake Titles</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id45.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="New Discoveries1"><U>New Discoveries1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id51.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="New Discoveries2"><U>New Discoveries2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="roger_anthony_pitt_tucker.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor1"><U>Crooked Solicitor1</U></A>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor2</B>   |   <A HREF="id62.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor3"><U>Crooked Solicitor3</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id63.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor4"><U>Crooked Solicitor4</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id64.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor5"><U>Crooked Solicitor5</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id65.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor6"><U>Crooked Solicitor6</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id67.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor7"><U>Crooked Solicitor7</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id66.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor8"><U>Crooked Solicitor8</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id68.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor9"><U>Crooked Solicitor9</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id69.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor10"><U>Crooked Solicitor10</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor11"><U>Crooked Solicitor11</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id71.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor12"><U>Crooked Solicitor12</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id72.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor13"><U>Crooked Solicitor13</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id73.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor14"><U>Crooked Solicitor14</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id74.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor15"><U>Crooked Solicitor15</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id75.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor16"><U>Crooked Solicitor16</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id76.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor 17"><U>Crooked Solicitor 17</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id77.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor18"><U>Crooked Solicitor18</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id78.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor19"><U>Crooked Solicitor19</U></A>   |   <A HREF="irish_and_english_baronies.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Selling the Forbidden"><U>Selling the Forbidden</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada___roger_pitts_tucker24.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Challenge"><U>The Challenge</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id60.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Declaration of Ownership"><U>Declaration of Ownership</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id57.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Diversion Tactics"><U>Diversion Tactics</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id42.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Reactions"><U>Reactions</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id33.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Disclaimer"><U>Disclaimer</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id23.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact "><U>Contact </U></A>   |   <A HREF="id44.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Index"><U>Index</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <B>If you have been victimize by any of these despicable men, Antonio A. Boada, Mark T. Williams or Roger Pitts-Tucker, go to "</B><A HREF="id58.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Answer"><U><B>The Answer</B></U></A><B>" and learn how you can join in a class action suit against them. </B></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>*************************************</B></div> <div> <B>Antonio A. Boada’s </B></div> <div> <B>Conveyancing Solicitor:</B></div> <div> <B>Guilty and Culpable</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <div> It is interesting to read how Mr. Roger Anthony Pitts-Tucker of Pitts-Tucker & Co. tries to weasel out of things and plead pure ignorance or that he is an innocent bystander and has no responsibility for Boada’s activities, no matter how corrupt they are. One of Mr. Pitts-Tucker’s excuses is the Boada’s clients are third parties. This is false, but lets go down this road of reasoning a little and see where it leads us. In general, it is true, that solicitors have no “<B>duty of care</B>” to third parties. But in <B>Dean v Allin & Watts (a firm) CA: Robert Walker and Sedley LJJ and Lightman J: 23 May 2001, </B>it clearly states that “<B>special circumstances of a particular case could require a different conclusion.</B>” In other words: </div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . if it was fair, just and reasonable to do so the law would impose a duty of care on solicitors to a third party in circumstances when . . . the solicitors knew, or </B><B><U>ought to have known</U></B><B>, that the third party . . . was relying on them to obtain effective [security].</B>” (see website: <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.lawreports.co.uk/civmay2.1.htm</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Commenting on this Andrew Crocombe of Coles Millers Solicitors, wrote:</div> <bR> <div> <B>If the advisor [or solicitor] knows, or importantly should have known</B><B>, that his/her advice was being relied upon by a third party then they must be immediately told to seek their own separate advice.</B> (<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.colesmiller.co.uk/public/latest.asp?side=aboutUs&submode=about&key=20</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> He also explained that:</div> <div>  </div> <div> <B>. . . all professional advisors [solicitors, etc.] where their advice is capable of being relied upon by a third party to a transaction [should be especially careful for failure may] . . . impose a duty of care upon the advisor [solicitor] towards that third party.</B> (Ibid.)</div> <bR> <div> And that is exactly the situation in this case, which will become more and more clear as we proceed. And this is true even if Mr. Pitts-Tucker was merely “<B>involved as ‘amanuensis’ [in other words, acting like a copycat, secretary or stenographer] for BFI in replying to Mr. Goff</B>” as he claimed in his <B>March 14, 2003</B> letter to the Law Society. (see enclosed letter) And why? Because as he wrote to me on <B>April 27, 2001:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>You should be aware in England that a solicitor, or other legal representative has a personal duty to satisfy himself as to the facts and circumstances supporting an allegation of fraud.</B> (see copy of letter in “<B>Exhibits for the Investigator’s Report</B>”) </div> <bR> <div> You see, he was right in the middle of everything and received information that showed fraud was involved from me and others including a number of other complaints, yet he turned a deaf ear to it, closed his eyes and heart But that is not moral or ethical according to his statement of what a solicitor is supposed to do, nor is it “<B>fair, just and reasonable</B>” when he “<B>knew, or </B><B><U>ought to have known</U></B>” that he could have prevented a lot of fraud and damage to people’s lives. Mr. Boada, with his help and support, has robbed and cheated hundreds of innocent, unsuspecting people of as much as $4,000,000.00 in total through this ugly trade in falsehoods. </div> <bR> <div> In his own defense, Mr. Pitts-Tucker wrote on <B>September 29, 2003 </B>that he had no “<B>duty</B>” or responsibility “<B>to be instructed in a field in which the solicitor has insufficient expertise . . . .</B>” (see enclosed letter) Yet on his website he claims this expertise. Under “<B>Services</B>” of his Law Firm under the subsection of “<B>Property,</B>” he has listed the “<B>Sale and purchase of feudal titles</B>” as one of their areas that they offer “<B>top quality legal services.</B>” (see <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.pittstucker.co.uk/property.html</U></B></FONT> and <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.pittstucker.co.uk/aboutus.html</U></B></FONT> or enclosed copy of website page) </div> <bR> <div> Mr. Boada proclaimed on his website that his field was “<B>a highly specialized and intricate field where prospective buyers want the assurance of qualified competence. [Therefore] we retain . . . Mr. R. A. Pitts-Tucker . . . .</B>” (see enclosed copy of website) Boada’s client’s, myself included, believed in this man, Roger Anthony Pitts-Tucker, and felt assured because he was a solicitor “<B>to the Supreme Court of England and Wales and licensed by the Law Society of England and</B> <B>Wales and . . . one of Her Majesty’s Privy Council Agents</B>” which certainly sounds quite impressive and solid like an oak. (copy of Boada’s website enclosed) I felt that nothing could be wrong if such a high solicitor of England gave it his approval and involvement and his good name or basically his stamp of approval. Or, as Mr. Boada stated in his <B>September 20, 2000</B> letter, “. . . <B>the very fact that we do business with them is to us an honor and tribute.</B>” Why? <B> </B>Because “<B>in Britain, solicitors of the stature of Pitts-Tucker & Co. would never become involved with any kind of company or individuals who are not absolutely above board.</B>”<B> </B>(see “<B>Exhibits for the Investigator’s Report</B>”)</div> <bR> <div> A number of us were “<B>relying on them [his law firm] to obtain effective [security or safety from deception and criminal wrong doing in the sale of feudal titles].</B>” In this, Mr. Pitts-Tucker entirely failed. His “<B>duty of care</B>” was violated. We did become victims despite his involvement or perhaps, more accurately, because of it.</div> <bR> <div> Mr. Pitts-Tucker has basically pleaded ignorance–that he was an innocent bystander–that he was “<B>amanuensis</B>” or a mindless, uninvolved person “<B>employed to write from dictation or to copy manuscript.</B>” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.mw.com</U></B></FONT>) Yet this is hardly an appropriate, or expected, position for a high solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales. Dr. Arthur McInnis, an English legal expert, stated that a solicitor is, “<B>To exercise independent personal judgment in all professional activities.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_practice/PP%20-%20Handout%20C.ppt</U></B></FONT>) He is not to act only as though he were a brainless secretary, with no responsibility, but to threaten, ignore or derail from the pursuit of justice any of Mr. Boada’s numerous victims who complained. This is way out of what is considered proper. It is behavior unbecoming for a high solicitor of England. </div> <bR> <div> If “<B>the sale of feudal titles is to say the least a recondite </B>[“recondite,” according to the dictionary means “difficult<B> </B>to penetrate; incomprehensible to one of ordinary understanding or knowledge type of] <B>market. . . ,</B>” as Mr. Pitts-Tucker explained in his <B>March 14, 2003</B> letter to the Law Society, then he should not have been involved as <B>6.1</B><B>(b)(i)</B> of <B><U>The Law Society’s Code for Advocacy</U></B> declares that an “<B>advocate . . . must not undertake any task which: (i) they know or </B><B><U>ought to know</U></B><B> they are not competent to handle.</B>”<B> </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.lawsociety.org.uk//documents/downloads/Profethics_Advocacy.pdf</U></B></FONT>)</div> <div> <B> </B></div> <div> The point is, when the horror of fraud was introduced in <B>2000 </B>and onward over and over again along with evidence supporting the fact, Pitts-Tucker did nothing, but continued to support his client Mr. Boada in committing crimes. It is a case of he “<B>knew or ought to have known</B>” <B>and is therefore culpable before the law.</B> (see “<B>Exhibits for the Investigator’s Report</B>,” where his company acknowledged the receipt of the evidence of fraud that I sent them) In fact, I sent him practically every letter demonstrating corruption in Boada and himself that I sent to the Law Society of England and Wales since 2002) The Law Society should abruptly penalize him because:</div> <bR> <div> . . .<B> a solicitor must not act upon a client’s instructions if to do so requires a course of action that assists in a breach of the law [fraud in this case] or transgresses rules of professional conduct [and disseminate Boada’s lies and deceptions to protect and encourage his business]. </B>(<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_practice/PP%20-%20Handout%20C.ppt</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Did Mr. Boada’s clients rely on Mr. Pitts-Tucker for security and safety and assurance? I certainly did. Another example is, Jan [name redacted], who wrote, “<B>I did call the firm [the law firm–Pitts-Tucker & Co.] in England to verify the accuracy and legitimacy of these titles prior to closing the deal and was advised that my titles were legitimate.</B>” (see enclosed e-mail) Yet as Dr. Arthur McInnis stated:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Solicitors giving undertakings or certifying something to be the case, accept special responsibility to third parties who act in reliance on it: Allied Finance & Investments Ltd v. Haddon & Co (1983); Al-Kandari v. JR Brown & Co (1987).</B>” (<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_practice/PP%20-%20Handout%20C.ppt</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> How many others did Pitts-Tucker lie to and deceit in this manner? I do not know, but it demonstrates a <B>duty of care</B> that was handled in a way that reflects shame upon the profession. Yet in <I><B>The Law Society’s Code of Advocacy</B></I> in section <B>2.1(a)(i)</B> it states: “<B>Advocates must not: (a) engage in conduct whether in pursuit of their profession or otherwise which is: (i) dishonest or otherwise is discreditable to an advocate.</B>” And It is criminally dishonest how Mr. Pitts-Tucker promoted Boada’s continuing trade in fake and counterfeit titles, especially when clear and compelling evidence was sent to Mr. Pitts-Tucker putting in grave doubt the validity and legitimacy of his client’s business. </div> <bR> <div> Where was Mr. Pitts-Tucker’s high sense of ethics that he boasted of in all of this? He advertised “<B>the highest standards of excellence and integrity,</B>” but actually supported, aided and abetted an enemy of mankind and encouraged him to continue in the crime of fraud and criminal misrepresentation, by neglect, if not as a partner in full knowledge of Boada’s dark secrets. How <B>low</B> can one get as a solicitor?</div> <bR> <div> However, it is more than a matter of merely shafting and deceiving third parties. Mr. Boada testified on his website that Pitts-Tucker was the <B>conveyancing solicitor </B>in this transaction. And his clients were to send their money payable to the order of Pitts-Tucker & Co. No wonder they (myself included) felt he had “<B>a duty of care.</B>” I sent my money to him.</div> <bR> <div> Going to <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://web.archive.org</U></B> </FONT>and typing in<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" > <B><U>www.nobletitles.com</U></B></FONT>,  I copied the full website closest to the time when I bought. (Boada’s website can no longer be accessed via Web Archives since he, Boada, put a block on it to hide the evidence–fortunately, it was copied beforehand) In it Mr. Boada wrote under the subtitle “<B>Purchase Documents and Guarantees</B>” that “<B>All such conveyances are done by our . . . Solicitors to the Supreme Court of England & Wales. . . .</B>” (see enclose copy) Under the subtitle “<B>Our Firm,</B>” Mr. Boada makes it clear that the principal solicitor who does the conveyances is Roger Pitts-Tucker. He writes: “<B>Our attorneys are Solicitors to the Supreme Court of England and Wales. . . . The Principle solicitor is The Hon. R.A. Pitts-Tucker, Esq. . . . .</B>” (a copy of this page from his website from the year 2000 is enclosed) </div> <bR> <div> In other words, Pitts-Tucker is proclaimed to be nothing less than the real “<B>conveyancing solicitor</B>” in this case.<B> </B>This is significantly substantiated by the fact that his name or the name of his legal firm is on almost every page of the legal documents. In other words, what Mr. Pitts-Tucker did fits perfectly into the definition of a conveyancing solicitor. In section <B>119(1)</B> of the “<B>Courts and Legal Services Act 1990</B>,” it states that “‘<B>conveyancing services</B>’<B> means the preparation of transfers, conveyances, contracts and other documents in connection with, and other services ancillary to, the disposition or acquisition of estates or interests in land,</B>”or immaterial property, such as, a phoney, counterfeit title of nobility, in this case. Mr. Pitts-Tucker did put everything together and executed the deeds. Under this official and legal definition, Pitts-Tucker was again undeniably the sole conveyancer in question. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_19900041_en_7.htm#mdiv119</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> In his<B> September 29, 2003</B> letter, Mr. Pitts-Tucker defends himself by saying that the transaction is a “<B>done deal</B>” or was “<B>completed</B>” before he has anything to do with it. But in his <B>March 14, 2003</B> letter, he states that “<B>completion is achieved when [not before or prior to] the legalised deed of transfer and/or statutory declaration are sent out to the purchaser.</B>” In other words, it is not complete until he has finished preparing and executes the deeds, which is the responsibility of a conveyancing solicitor. </div> <bR> <div> As an added witness, Margaret Montalvo, Esq. in her professional capacity as an attorney-at-law in the State of Florida officially speaking for and in behalf of her client, Antonio A. Boada stated on <B>December 16, 2002</B>, “<B>Pitts-Tucker & Co., which is a firm of solicitors, handled all [not some, but all] legal transactions from start to finish.</B>” (see enclosed letter) She even went on to say, “<B>The solicitors validate the titles in England.</B>” This validation or the “<B>deducing of title</B>” is one of the major duties of a conveyancing solicitor.</div> <bR> <div> Donald Ramsbottom, LLB, BA (Hons) of Hants, England wrote, “<B>. . . deducing title is what the vendors solicitor does to prove he ‘owns’ what he says he does (or rather his client [owns]).</B>” <B>(</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2000September/013275.html</U></B></FONT>) </div> <bR> <div> Mr. Boada further testifies in his letter of <B>March 5, 2003</B> to Roger Pitts-Tucker, a letter which Mr. Pitts-Tucker included with his <B>March 14, 2003</B> response the Law Society, that, “<B>. . .The solicitor need only deduce title going back fifteen (15) years,</B>” and “<B>Roger Pitts-Tucker, conforming to the norms of English law, deduces title strictly back to the fifteen years required by English law.</B>” Again, here is Mr. Boada’s take on the situation. Mr. Pitts-Tucker was the “<B>conveyancing solicitor</B>” and that he does deduce titles as a conveyancing solicitor is supposed to as required by the <B>Law of Property Act 1969.</B> I have reasonably requested this of him for close to five years now, but he just ignores me. Apparently obeying the law does not seem to be very important to this man who boasts that he operates under “<B>the highest standards of excellence and integrity.</B>” (see <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>www.pittstucker.co.uk/aboutus.html</B></FONT> or enclosed copy) Yet as Dr. McInnis states, “<B>An admitted solicitor is an officer of the Court [and] . . . has a duty to obey the law.</B>”<B> </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_practice/PP%20-%20Handout%20C.ppt</U></B></FONT>) When will this crooked man come clean and do his duty? Answer: probably never unless he is compelled to do so, because this man believes he is above the law. The law is for other people, not him. He is too high and mighty, lofty and untouchable.</div> <bR> <div> <B> </B>Pitts-Tucker’s defense is that he was ignorant of all of this. But he was caught in guile. In his <B>September 29, 2003</B> letter to the Law Society where he admitted to having looked at Boada’s website before “<B>January 2001 when I [Mr. Pitts-Tucker is referring to himself] was able to change some aspect of his website by agreement with him [his client Mr. Boada] which referred to myself [Mr. Pitts-Tucker again].</B>” And what did he see? He saw an earlier version that clearly identified him as the “<B>solicitor</B>” who does the “<B>conveyances.</B>” </div> <bR> <div> Mr. Boada’s website on <B>April 8, 2000,</B> which, by the way, had no sales agreement or terms and conditions section, stated under the subtitle of “<B>Our Firm:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Our attorneys are Solicitors to the Supreme Court of England and Wales and as such are licensed and insured by the Law Society of England, (the equivalent of the American Bar Association), the Principal solicitor is The Hon. R.A. Pitts-Tucker, Esq. who also holds the position of Agent to Her Majesty’s Privy Council and is also Her Majesty’s Clerk of the Green Cloth for Ireland, a historic position. </B>(see enclosed copy of website)</div> <bR> <div> Some obvious mistakes are<B> </B>the Law Society does not <B>insure</B>, Mr. Pitts-Tucker does not qualify for the title of “<B>The Hon.</B>,” and I don’t think he’d wants people to think of him as “<B>Her Majesty’s Clerk of the Green Cloth of Ireland</B>” when the title doesn’t even exist.<B> </B>It was pure imaginary Boada rubbish.</div> <bR> <div> The changed version read under the subtitle of “<B>Our Firm</B>”<B> </B>reads:</div> <bR> <div> <B>We retain in the UK Solicitors to the Supreme Court of England and Wales and as such are licensed and insured by the Law Society of England, (the equivalent of the American Bar Association). Their principal is Mr. R.A. Pitts-Tucker and the firm is registered as one of Her Majesty’s Privy Council Agents. </B>(see booklet entitled, “<B>Antonio A. Boada’s Website for British Feudal Investments, Ltd.</B>”)</div> <bR> <div> Obviously, the inappropriate title of “<B>The Hon.</B>”<B> </B>and the nonexistent title of “<B>Her Majesty’s Clerk of the Green Cloth of Ireland</B>” were removed. But he did not instruct Mr. Boada from deleting or eliminating, “<B>All such conveyances are done by our . . . Solicitors. . . ,</B>” that is, by “<B>Mr. R.A. Pitts-Tucker</B>.” This was included in the 2001 and 2003 copies or versions of Mr. Boada’s website which can be seen in the booklet entitled, “<B>Antonio A. Boada’s Website for British Feudal Investments, Ltd.</B>”</div> <bR> <div> Having seen and not edited the part about him being the <B>conveyancing solicitor</B>, Mr. Pitts-Tucker shows he had a duty to deduce the root of title or prove each title is valid for Mr. Boada’s clients. And even if he was ignorant of this fact, the law looks at it that he either “<B>knew or </B><B><U>ought to have known</U></B>” this and therefore Boada’s victims were <B>“relying on them [his firm] to obtain effective [security and safety in this field that he says his firm are experts in].</B>” That is, he should have investigated the charge of fraud and that he was proclaimed as the <B>conveyancing solicitor</B>. But instead, he pathetically pleads ignorance and had no need to be informed. </div> <bR> <div> It is amazing to me that he, a solicitor to the Supreme Court of England and Wales and Privy Council Agent would write on <B>September 29, 2003</B> to the Law Society that all he need is to “<B>have passed Part 1 and Part 2 of the Solicitor’s Exam. . . .</B>” But ignorance is not an excuse for promoting fraud. It might mitigate his sentence, but not excuse his crime. See the booklets entitled: <B>“Proof of Fraud: The Ugly Truth,</B>” “<B>Selling the Forbidden: Illegal Activities of Antonio A. Boada,</B>” “<B>The Basics:</B> 1. <B>Summary of Theft</B>, 2. <B>Boada’s Foul and Deceitful Claim</B>, 3. <B>The Core Issue</B>, and 4. <B>Letters from the Imperial Family</B>” and “<B>Official Statement of the Imperial and Royal Hohenzollern Family of Germany.</B>” All of these booklets show clear and convincing<U> </U>evidence of fraud, and that Mr. Boada is a shameless con man who heartlessly rips people off. But instead of exposing this fraud, Mr. Pitts-Tucker, who had information on most of the ugly truth about Mr. Boada, shielded and protected him and ensured that he could rip off more and more people.</div> <bR> <div> I thought it interesting that Mr. Pitts-Tucker complains that I am complaining in his letter. But when he damages people lives, I cannot rest until he is brought to justice. And after almost five years, I would think he’d finally get the message that all I am asking is that he and his client provide evidence that the title is really from the people they claim it is from. It is a reasonable and lawful request. However, it seems they would even rather face criminal charges and go through the expense of perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in defending themselves rather than simple prove they are honest men who sold the real thing–an authentic and genuine title. </div> <bR> <div> But guilty people act this way. They have much to hide. They are trying to run away from the fact that they can’t prove it, because they know it is all a fabrication, a crime, a lie, a premeditated and ugly scheme they have perpetuated against me and many others.<B> </B></div> <bR> <div> The point here is that Mr. Boada and Mr. Pitts-Tucker will do anything, be evasive, intimidating, complain, deceive, distract, stall, ignore, attack, bring up the irrelevant, anything, but address <B>the critical issue of proof, which is at the core of my complaint</B>. The reason is clear, you simply can’t prove a bogus, fake or counterfeit title of nobility is the real thing anymore than you can prove gravity doesn’t exist.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Conclusion:</B> Mr. Boada and Mr. Pitts-Tucker have not shown that my title is genuine or true, nor that they ever really truly owned it or had any legal right or lawful entitlement to sell it. Hence, they sold me a defective and questionable title, an inferior product that is flawed, that neither they nor I can prove is legitimately from an authentic or reliable source. This is simply not an honest business practice.  It is the work of a con man and his solicitor.</div> <bR> <div> Where were all those glowing promises of legitimacy they posted on their website? In other words, they snowed me and robbed me. They knew it was a mangled claim, totally defective and devoid of backing, but never bothered to tell me, warn me or caution me of this serious defect. They just wanted my money. This was nothing less than a cona criminal act of fraud. The point is, they gypped me through a premeditated sham, got my hard earned money and I got a worthless piece of paper. </div> <bR> <div> According to the <B>Law of Property Act 1969</B>, it is Mr. Pitts-Tucker’s legal obligation and duty to obey this law, that is, deduce or prove the validity and genuineness of the title’s origin back 15 years. It is also my right to have this proof. However, judging from the past, Mr. Pitts-Tucker will try to weasel out of it, distract, evade and otherwise play legal games. He has no sense of what’s right or any desire to right the wrongs and damages he has done to me and countless others.</div> <bR> <div> Justice must be done and the message needs to be loud and clear to all the title peddlers and crooked solicitors that they are in jeopardy and society will no longer tolerate their lies, deceptions and deceit. </div> <bR> <div> Mr. Pitts-Tucker is a ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing ready to devour by deception. He is not a pillar of society or among the honorable or great men of the earth. He is a villain and a parasite on society and his kind are a cancer that needs strong medicine to cure the corruption thereof. This disease needs major surgery–heavy sanctions and probably prison terms to help protect society and deter other like men from following his example. The Law Society of England and Wales, I would think, would be ashamed of such a man and should denounce him for what he is. </div> <bR> <div> <B>If you have been victimized by Mr. Boada, Mr. Williams or Mr. Pitts-Tucker, it’s time to make criminal complaints and sue them for the detestable things they have done to you and many others. It’s like the saying, “</B><B>United we stand divided we fall.</B><B>” Only when the authorities see that hundreds have actually been robbed and cheated, will they put a priority on this serious case. Go to “</B><A HREF="id58.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Answer"><U><B>The Answer</B></U></A><B>” for more information.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Please read the "</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id33.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Disclaimer"><U><B>Disclaimer.</B></U></A></FONT><B>"</B></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="roger_anthony_pitt_tucker.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor1"><U><B>Previous Page</B></U></A><B> / </B><A HREF="id62.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor3"><U><B>Next Page</B></U></A></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>