Crooked Solicitor3

<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> <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> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> Crooked Solicitor3</div> <div> <B>An open letter of invitation to make things right</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>   |   <A HREF="id46.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor2"><U>Crooked Solicitor2</U></A>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor3</B>   |   <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>Two recent invitation letters, which Mr. Pitts-Tucker has failed to answer are posted here for all to see. They both provide powerful and weighty evidence of gross neglect and misconduct on the part of Roger Pitts-Tucker:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>March 17, 2006</B></div> <bR> <div> Dear Mr. Pitts-Tucker,</div> <bR> <div> I sent to the Law Society proof that I told you back in 2001 that <B>British Feudal Investments, Ltd. </B>was not registered as required by law and therefore was operating illegally in England. I also sent them the response of <B>Companies House </B>that this company–a front for a well-known scam artist, that is, British Feudal Investments, Ltd., was never registered in England even though it claimed a London office. </div> <div> You responded in your August 17, 2001 letter to Mr. Branscum, the investigator, that you did not know of any law that required such registration by <B>Companies House. </B>Is ignorance to the law an excuse for a solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, or for any solicitor for that matter? You are supposed to be an expert in the law and you asked Mr. Branscum of Florida about the law of the United Kingdom? Well, for your information, there are two of them: the <B>Companies Act 1985 </B>and the updating legislation contained in the <B>Companies Act 1989 </B>all passed by your own Parliament<B>. </B></div> <bR> <div> How is it that you could be so ignorant of the law? Why didn’t you care enough to check it out? This should have been a big, huge red flag for you that your client didn’t bother to be registered? You could have checked it out merely by going to their website see using their automatic list and seen the law and requirements for yourself. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk</U></B></FONT>) Doesn’t obedience to law matter to you? Why have you consistently never bothered to even lift your little figure when the issues of fraud, lies, corruption and deceit were raised as issues over and over again? And why, when compelling evidence of such was sent to you, did you fail to take note of it? </div> <bR> <div> The point is "<B>you knew or ought to have known</B>" the truth about this. But you have been negligent, criminally so to me to the point of causing my bankruptcy when I told you I was depending on you. As you very well know, if you kept the letters that I wrote, I made it clear that I would be in great financial duress unless you came through. Reliance is the key in determining if a <B>duty of care </B>to a third party becomes an obligation. The Law Society has copies of my letters that demonstrate this dependance.</div> <bR> <div> If I sound a little sore at you that would be accurate. I have good reason to be. I am the one who has been wronged, not you, because you have refused to do your sworn duty as a man who advertizes that he follows "<B>the highest standards of excellence and integrity.</B>" If you had only done what a reasonable and honest solicitor would do, the normal standards of your profession, none of this would have happened.</div> <bR> <div>  sent proof to the Law Society of England and Wales that I informed you back in 2001 that I had a letter from the <B>Modern University of Lisbon </B>stated empathically that Mr. Boada, the con man and liar, was never even a student at this university much less a graduate as he claimed in all three Statutory Declarations. And if you had checked out their website, (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://www.umoderna.pt</U></B><U>),</U></FONT><B> this University does not even have a graduate program in law much less "Nobiliary and Peerage Law</B>" as Mr. Boada wildly claimed. Why did you not check this out? Why did it not even phase you? A reasonable and honest practitioner in your field would been alarmed and would have done something. Again, "<B>you knew or should have known</B>" something was terribly wrong, but turned a deaf ear to it all. </div> <bR> <div> I wish to remind you that about two weeks have past since I <B>again</B> requested that you to obey the law as well as the guidelines, ethical rules and principles of the Law Society of England and Wales. I believe it would make you look good to come through and show that you are honorable and will fulfill your word and provide proof that the Principality of Halberstadt was legitimately and truly conveyed to me by the Imperial and Royal House of Prussia through Antonio A. Boada in the year 2000 as declared in the <B>Deed of Transfer </B>and the three <B>Statutory Declarations </B>you sent to me.</div> <bR> <div> Your highest commitment as a solicitor should be to truth and honesty as well as fairness and justice, and obedience to law. I am only asking you to do what is right. </div> <bR> <div> I am including my former letter of March 2, 2006 immediately following this letter to remind you of your duties and obligations. It is hoped that my complaint against you can be resolved. Now the ball is in your court again. Will do the right thing–the honorable thing–the ethical and morally right thing or continue to ignore me? </div> <bR> <div> Sincerely yours, (name redacted)</div> <bR> <div> Copy to:</div> <div> The Law Society of England and Wales</div> <div> Antonio A. Boada</div> <div> The website: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.phoneynobletitles.com</U></B></FONT></div> <div> Update to all interested parties</div> <bR> <div> **************************************</div> <bR> <div> <B>March 2, 2006</B></div> <bR> <div> Dear Mr. Pitts-Tucker, </div> <bR> <div> For almost five years, you have not communicating with me. I have sent you updates on what is going on as far as I knew with my limited understanding of things. I have sent you a number of the letters I shared with the FBI and almost all that I sent to the Law Society. I have asked you if you had anything you could demonstrate to me that was wrong on my website <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.phoneynobletitles.com" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.phoneynobletitles.com"><U><B><U>www.phoneynobletitles.com</U></B></U></A></FONT> to give you a chance to correct it. I offered you opportunities to deal with me and settle the problem in a way that would be just to everyone involved. I sent you options and alternative ideas. I let you know that I have no lawyer or solicitor representing me so you could deal directly with me. I informed you of your solemn duty and obligation to provide proof that the title conferred upon me was authentically conveyed to me from the Imperial House of Prussia. Yet you have left me in the dark all these many years and neglected me entirely. This must not continue.</div> <bR> <div> It is important that you communicate with me, not merely because it would be a professional courtesy to do so, not merely because I relied on you and you wronged me, but because according to <B>Section 17.01(7) of the Law Society’s Professional Guidelines,</B> it would be an act of professional misconduct <B><U>not</U></B> to do so.<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#800000" FACE="Arial" > This particular guideline states: </FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>Where a solicitor receives a letter from a person who is not a client and to whom no professional duty is owed, and which does not relate to the business of a client or former client, failure to reply does not normally amount to professional misconduct. As a matter of courtesy the solicitor should acknowledge such letters.</B></div> <bR> <div> Note as follows that what I write to you does relate to the business of one of your “<B>clients or former clients.</B>”</div> <bR> <div> As you know, you were a witness to a “<B>Deed of Transfer</B>” between myself and your client, Antonio A. Boada (alias: A. Antony Boada Cartaya) of the Principality of Halberstadt dated January 14, 2000.</div> <bR> <div> I have an “<B>undertaking</B>” dated 9/20/00 from Naffisa Sheikh, Esq. from your office, <B>upon which I relied</B>, that stated.</div> <bR> <div> <B>The copies of the documents you have requested of Antony, Baron Chafford are being collected for photocopy and will be sent to you shortly by BFI. I wanted to write to you and let you know that your request is being dealt with and not ignored and that you should be receiving the documents in question shortly. I can as their lawyer, inform you they have been recently inudated with requests and Lord Chafford has had to be present in his Diplomatic capacity as Ambassador, at a number of conferences in Jamaica recently. This has unfortunately slowed matters somewhat but I reiterate that the requested information will be forthcoming at the very earliest date as promised by BFI.</B> </div> <bR> <div> As you know, according to the Law Society’s guidelines for solicitors, your firm is obligated to provide for me what I had requested and was promised. That is, you must provide solid evidence that the title of Halberstadt that was conveyed to me was, in fact, authentically convey from the Imperial and Royal House of Hohenzollern–those who had the sole and exclusive right to convey this title or Imperially owned principality.</div> <bR> <div> The obligation and responsibility to do so is explained in the guidelines and it is required if a person “<B>places reliance on it.” </B>For example, </div> <bR> <div> According to <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#800000" FACE="Arial" >Section "</FONT><B>18.02 Breach and misconduct,</B>" it is an act of misconduct not to fulfill your guarantee. It is binding on the solicitor and his or her firm whether the word “<B>undertaking</B>,” promise or guarantee is used in the promise or not. In section "<B>18.04 Performance outside solicitor’s control,</B>" it points out how important and serious such a promise or statement is for it states very clearly that, "<B>An undertaking is binding even if it is to do something outside the solicitor’s control.</B>" <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#800000" FACE="Arial" >In other words, it is no excuse that it might be out of your control to provide such proof. And </FONT>"<B>The giver [of an undertaking] cannot unilaterally withdraw from an undertaking once the recipient has placed reliance on it,</B>" which I did and still do. In addition, an undertaking is considered to be so grave and of such far reaching importance that <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#800000" FACE="Arial" >"</FONT><B>The OSS [the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors] expects solicitors to honour undertakings for so long as their names remain on the roll and regardless of whether or not they hold practising certificates.</B>"</div> <bR> <div> The point is, “<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>” (See: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_practice/PP%20-%20Handout%20C.ppt" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_"><U><B><U>http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_practice/PP%20-%20Handout%20C.ppt</U></B></U></A></FONT>) </div> <bR> <div> It should, therefore, be more than obvious at this point that you owe me the proof that the title of Halberstadt was legitimately conveyed to me from the Imperial House of Hohenzollern as specified in the various documents signed by you and sent to me from your office, i.e., the <B>Deed of Transfer</B>, May <B>Statutory Declaration</B>, June <B>Statutory Declaration </B>and the November <B>Statutory Declaration </B>in the year 2000. </div> <bR> <div> <B>Remember this is very serious because, failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. </B></div> <bR> <div> In addition, because you admitted to looking at Mr. Boada’s website more than once in one of your letters to the Law Society of which I have a copy, therefore, <B>“you knew or ought to have known</B>” that Mr. Boada’s British Feudal Investment’s website<B> </B>declares you to be the “<B>conveyancing solicitor.</B>” Hence, you must obey the <B>Law of Property Act 1969 </B>which requires you to prove that genuine ownership existed and that Mr. Boada had the legitimate right to sell the principality for and in behalf of the Imperial House. The root of proof must go back fifteen years, if necessary,<B> </B>to ensure that a rightful and valid sale took place. In other words, the <B>Law of Property Act 1969 </B>also requires you to fulfill your “<B>undertaking</B>”–your solemn promise, even if it was given by “<B>a member of a solicitor’s staff in the course of practice.</B>”</div> <bR> <div> A third binding reason you are required and therefore must send me the proof of legitimacy is that you created a “<B>duty of care,</B>” that is, “<B>you knew, </B><B><U>or ought to have known</U></B><B>, that a third party [myself] . . . was relying on . . .</B>” on you, because of the letters I sent to you are weighted heavily with my requests for proof and how I was relying on receiving such and needed them to spare me great financial difficulty–problems that ultimately forced me into bankruptcy.</div> <bR> <div> According to various cases, Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v. Mardon (1976), Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v. Hett Stubbs & Kemp (A Firm) (1979), and Hawkins v. Clayton (1988), it is a well established fact that there is a common law “<B>duty of care</B>” owed to third parties. “<B>Duty of care</B>” has been defined as doing the things that a prudent, honest, diligent and reasonable man would do in the particular circumstances and refraining from those things that such a man would not do. A reasonable man would not turn a deaf ear to the specter of fraud wherein I send you the opinion of experts that a gross deception has occurred. A reasonable man would know that people were relying on him and his reputation not to promote fraud. A reasonable man would have noted that my letters were full of evidence of reliance and overtly expressed financial needs. A reasonable person would know that if his client’s website said he was the “<B>conveyancing solicitor</B>” that people would believe it and rely on it to be the truth.</div> <bR> <div> I have sent the 2000 and 2001 letters that went back and forth from myself and your office to the Law Society of England and Wales establishing the reliance I had in you, and how I spelled out that the business I was trying to establish as a consultant in employee recognitions (Honors and Recognitions) would be ruined and I would suffer great financial damage if you failed to provide the solid proof that a legitimate conveyance took place.</div> <bR> <div> In summary, you are obligated to provide the proof by virtue of the “<B>undertaking,</B>” that is, your guarantee, your “<B>duty of care</B>” to me, and by the <B>Law of Property Act 1969</B>. All three of these demand your rightful attention. </div> <bR> <div> As Dr. Arthur McInnis, a noted legalist, made clear, “<B>A solicitor has a duty to obey the law.</B>” This is “<B>an inherent obligation</B>” as described in the Guide for “<B>the Guide is the ‘law of the profession.</B>’” If you disobey this law, you, a solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, flaunt your arrogant disdain of the law before your peers in the Law Society. Do you really want to say you are above obeying the law or the law of your profession?</div> <bR> <div> Obviously, you should fulfill your promises. But, besides all this, your “<B>integrity</B>” and loyalty to <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#800000" FACE="Arial" >high ethical standards should be the most binding and </FONT>important reason above all others to comply with this request. According to Rondel v Worsley, Lord Denning said, “<B>He [the solicitor] owes allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and justice.</B>” </div> <bR> <div> Even if the title sold to me were genuine, it was sold to me as a defective product that could never be used because the Imperial family would not support it and you and your client never provided the obligatory “<B>root of title</B>” as promised and as required by law. Truth and justice demands that you do what is morally and ethically right. </div> <bR> <div> In the <I><B>Solicitors Practice Rules</B></I>, it states in <B>Rule One </B>that, “<B>A solicitor shall not do anything in the course of practising as a solicitor, or permit another person to do anything on his or her behalf, which compromises or impairs or is likely to compromise or impair any of the following,</B>” which includes the important principle of  “<B>integrity</B>” and “<B>the good repute [reputation] of the solicitor,</B>”-- an important point here is how you look before others as a solicitor is at stake. You have treated me so poorly, so unjustly, and for so long that I had to resort to putting up a website to make my just claims against you known. You wouldn’t come through for me. Will you, at least, measure up to the standards of your profession for your own sake? </div> <bR> <div> <B>Rule One </B>also includes “<B>the good repute . . . of the solicitor’s profession.</B>” How are you impacting your profession? What kind of example are you giving out? Are solicitors not to be trusted? Are they above obeying and honoring the law?<B> </B></div> <bR> <div> If your client was involved in what looks like fraud–use of an alias in his Statutory Declarations and Deed of Transfer–his real name is “<B>Antonio A. Boada,</B>” not “<B>Antony Boada Cartaya,</B>” as well as the compelling proof I sent you by known experts that Mr. Boada used a person’s name that does not even exist as the center piece of his November 2000 Statutory Declaration to me, and even more incriminating I sent you what the attorney of the Imperial family said, that is, that they did not know of a Mr. Boada and never did any business with him. Mr. Pitts-Tucker, “<B>you knew, or ought to have known</B>” something was seriously wrong. Turning a deaf ear to this was unprofessional, outrageous and irresponsible.</div> <bR> <div> Remember, this is of such great importance that Lord Denning in Parry-Jones v. The Law Society (1964)<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000080" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>said, “<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 or transgresses rules of professional conduct.</B>” How many times I reminded you that British Feudal Investments, Ltd. was not registered with Companies House as required by law and was operating illegally and you purposefully ignored it. You should <B><U>not</U></B> have neglected my reliance on you. You should <B><U>not</U></B> have neglected the evidence of fraud or so many other things wherein you have wronged me. </div> <bR> <div> You actually have a higher and more binding obligation to me and “<B>truth and justice</B>” than to Mr. Boada, a known liar and con artist, in order to <B><U>not</U></B> be in breach of the rules of professional conduct as well as be a man of “<B>integrity</B>” and obey the law of the land. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_practice/PP%20-%20Handout%20C.ppt" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_"><U><B><U>http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_practice/PP%20-%20Handout%20C.ppt</U></B></U></A></FONT>) </div> <bR> <div> I have been asking you for <B>five</B> years now to honor your word, your obligations, and your duty to obey the law. Never at any time have you come through. The November 2000 Statutory Declaration is a farce. I sent the proof to the Law Society that I sent you compelling evidence in early 2001 that it was bogus, contradictory and nonsensical and your office confirmed the receipt of that fax. When you looked at four stock certificates as I asked of you, you failed to confirm that they were real people. They were probably people who didn’t even exist and had fake names just like the phoney princely name used in the November 2000 Statutory Declaration. And you said the people on the stock certificates were named “<B>Hohenzollern,</B>” which proves that they had nothing to do with the title of Halberstadt or any legitimate authority to convey it. The “<B>Hohenzollerns</B>”–<B>“prinz or prinzessin von Hohenzollern</B>” are a junior line of non-royals and non-imperials who have absolutely nothing to do with any of the Imperial titles of Prussia, such as, the Imperial owned principality of Halberstadt. True members of the Imperial and Royal House of Prussia have the name of either “<B>prinz von Preussen</B>” for males or “<B>prinzessin von Preussen</B>” for females. You therefore, in effect, unwittingly testified that fraud had occurred by writing in your letter that the wrong names were on the stock certificates. They weren’t Imperial Hohenzollerns–the Preussens as claimed by Mr. Boada. They were the wrong people altogether, proving again that the conveyance was bogus. I told you this, but you still refused to open up your eyes. You are guilty. There is only one way to redeem yourself. Prove yourself to be honorable instead of part of the ugly scam that was perpetrated against me.</div> <bR> <div> For five long years, you never came through. You were negligent. You are still negligent. I would call it “<B>criminally negligent</B>” as a solicitor of the Supreme Court. But regardless of that, I expect and need you to right your wrongs. I am still suffering from the bankruptcy that came as a direct result of your failure. I depended on you. If you had done your duty, I never would have gone bankrupt. </div> <bR> <div> When I first made my complaint to the Law Society, before I went bankrupt, I wrote:</div> <bR> <div> <B>What would satisfy the complaint:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>What would satisfy this particular grievance is if Roger Pitts-Tucker would provide irrefutable proof that could be verified and confirmed that the transfer of the title was actually/truly conveyed by senior members of the Imperial and Royal House of Prussia through Antony Boada to me as claimed.</B></div> <bR> <div> All that I am asking is that you do your duty and obey the law nothing more and nothing less. </div> <bR> <div> Please send solid confirmable proof as soon as possible before the month of March 2006 is over. I don’t want dirty tricks, diversions, beating around the bush, just the honest truth.</div> <bR> <div> Please provide some proof options or alternatives that you are willing to offer within the next two weeks for approval. Each must have a way of confirming or verifying the conveyance of the principality from the Imperial House of Hohenzollern to be certain fact.</div> <bR> <div> You have a very short time in which to comply so that this issue may be resolved in a professional manner. </div> <bR> <div>  </div> <div> Respectfully yours,  (name redacted)</div> <bR> <div> Copy to: </div> <div> The Law Society of England and Wales</div> <div> Antonio A. Boada</div> <div> The website: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.phoneynobletitles.com</U></B></FONT></div> <div> Update to all interested parties</div> <bR> <div> Of course, neither Mr. Pitts-Tucker or Mr. Boada can prove fraud is real, but the challenge must be given to again demonstrate their guilt and make it obvious.</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, “United we stand divided we fall.” 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="id46.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor2"><U><B>Previous Page</B></U></A><B> / </B><A HREF="id63.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor4"><U><B>Next Page</B></U></A></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>