Crooked Solicitor5

<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><B> |  </B></div> <div> <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>   |   <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>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor5</B>   |   <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> <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 Solicitor5</div> <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>   |   <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>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor5</B>   |   <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> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>*************************************</B></div> <div> <B>Annual Invitations</B></div> <bR> <div> Every year I have sent <B>Mr. Pitts-Tucker</B> at least two letters inviting him to make things right. The following was the most recent one sent in <B>October 2007. Immediately afterwards in a November 15, 2007 invitation with incriminating information.</B></div> <bR> <div> It looks like you may be in big trouble professionally for a number of serious infractions of professional misconduct. I can say that only because of rumors I hear, as the Law Society keeps me in the dark about everything. But you can’t blame me for the danger you are in. I sent you clear and convincing evidence of fraud on the part of your client back in <B>2001</B> and even sent you all the contact information so you could confirm or find out for yourself that everything I gave you was valid and not hearsay. Why you turned a deaf ear to this is beyond me unless you were deeply involved in the scam or in on the take. In any case, such gross negligence of duty was misconduct, and it was your own substandard work that got you into this mess.</div> <bR> <div> Your office also gave me an "<B>undertaking</B>" in September of 2000 for and behalf of your client, which has never been honored even though you, as a solicitor "<B>knew or ought to have known</B>" better. Your whole profession is built on the idea that "undertakings" are always fulfilled even if it is a hardship. I also let you know, in no uncertain terms, that I was relying on that "undertaking" to avoid financial ruin — I knew without its fulfillment my ship would sink and I clearly expressed this serious concern to you several times. Ultimately, your failure to honor your promise resulted in my suffering a bankruptcy for which I am still suffering. I managed to keep it at bay for about a year and a half afterwards, but after exhausting my resources, I could no longer continue financially. All this happened, in spite of my annual invitations and many letters to you asking you to discuss these things and resolve the problems.</div> <bR> <div> It also irked me that you were obligated by law to provide this service to me as a third party by virtue of the fact that your office gave me an "undertaking," which created a legal responsibility or "duty of care" on your part towards me, but you never did your duty. This dereliction or substandard performance of your professional duty created a great inequality — a travesty of justice. You got off scot free when you are the one who perpetrated or perpetuated, through Mr. Boada, the crime.</div> <bR> <div> Quoting from a recent Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal report: "<B>Solicitors and others are entitled to rely on the undertakings of solicitors and to have no doubt that those undertakings will be discharged in full.</B>"<B> </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.lawsociety</U></B><B><U>.</U></B><B><U>org.uk</U></B></FONT>) I expect you to discharge your duty to me even if it is seven years late.</div> <bR> <div> This letter is my annual and/or semi-annual appeal to you to honor your firm’s "<B>undertaking</B>" and your obligation to prove "<B>good title</B>" (<B>Law of Property Act(s) 1924-25 & 1969</B>) by sending me the documents or confirmable evidence (evidence that can be verified as true) that prove that Mr. Boada actually conveyed all the rights to the Principality of Halberstadt from the "<B>de jure</B>" legal owners, rather than the "<B>de facto</B>" (the Federal German Republic) owners of the rights to that territory. In other words, proof that the Royal and Imperial House of Hohenzollern conveyed the rights as claimed in the <B>Statutory Declarations</B> and <B>Deed of Transfer</B>.</div> <div> I have never wavered from this same identical appeal from the onset of my discovery that something was seriously wrong with this whole deal. I wrote to the Law Society in <B>October of 2002</B> in my original complaint against you as follows:</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> <B>If he cannot do this, and he can’t, then we have evidence sufficient to show that Roger Pitts-Tucker has helped perpetuate, aided and abetted a notorious fraudster. . . . [Mr.] Pitts-Tucker will employ [tactics] to derail you from their inability to provide proof that the transfer was anything other than a legalized fantasy and therefore a fraud. And as I have no confidence that Pitts-Tucker will do anything constructive in this matter, I look forward to your ability to stop unethical behavior on the part of any of your members [solicitors]. Thank you for your help in this important matter. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>If it should come to this, we would appreciate your endorsement or recommendation for criminal prosecution and/or civil litigation against this man’s practice.</B></div> <bR> <div> As early as <B>August of 2000</B>, I asked that evidence be sent to me that would irrefutably prove that the Imperial family was really involved in this transaction. I told you that this was the missing link. There was no actual proof that the real owners were actually a party to the conveyance. In other words, "<B>good title</B>" was never accomplished. The title was defective and the <B>Law of Property Act</B> was flagrantly disobeyed in regard to this. </div> <div> I am again inviting you to either prove legitimacy — that the Royal and Imperial House of Prussia were involved and actually conveyed the rights to the principality, or come clean, and like a man of honor, take responsibility for what you did; and try to right your wrongs. Either one of these two actions could provide a powerful message that might mitigate your situation with the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. If you do not, it is a sure sign of continued misconduct and disregard for the law you have sworn to obey. It is also a red flag that you have no honorable intentions in this critical test of your integrity. </div> <bR> <div> You will, obviously by your actions, reveal what kind of man you really are. So far, you look like a crooked, heartless man, a lawyer who couldn’t care less about his victims or what he caused to occur in their lives. And you look like the guilty party in this ugly mess, because you have something to hide .It appears obvious, from your past behavior, that you have done, and will continue to do anything, use lawyer tricks, ploys, distractions, delays (it’s been 7 years now), beat around the bush, fail to communicate or work things out in spite of invitations, that you will do, anything but show yourself to be honorable in your profession and therefore worthy of the high distinction and professional status its brings. </div> <bR> <div> You have never been respectful toward me. When you did write, which was only about three letters between <B>2001 & 2002</B>, you wrote a number of distortions, stretched the truth into wrongs, twisted reality and threatened me. I have never dealt with a person who appeared more crooked than you, except perhaps the men you aided and abetted — the con artist, Mr. Boada and his sidekick, Mark T. Williams. You did not even respond to me when I asked you years and years ago if you had any objections to my website: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.phoneynobletitles.com</U></B></FONT>.</div> <bR> <div> All I can say is I look forward with great interest to the outcome of these initial proceedings with the SDT and hope that they result in a full fledged criminal investigation and your incarceration along with hefty fines unless, of course, you are willing to right your wrongs. But remember there were a lot of people who were given the shaft because of your bad legal advise and support of your client’s falsehoods all the while when you "<B>knew or ought to have known</B>" better.</div> <bR> <div> For years and years on your old website, you advertized that you operated with the "<B>highest standards of excellence and integrity.</B>" You have wisely removed this false advertizement from your current website. But I have often wondered, where were these high standards when you dealt with me and so many others? I trusted you back them, but I don’t trust you now. For over seven years, you have wronged me. I know you have also treated others in a shabby way as well and continued to support Mr. Boada in robbing and cheating numerous other victims, in spite of the fact that I sent you compelling and serious evidence of fraud six years ago. A reasonable man would have acted on this evidence, discovered the truth and withdrew his support. You did not.</div> <div> You can, however, now choose to do the right thing here and now, and no longer continue to keep proving over and over again that you are unworthy of being a solicitor. It is time that you started measuring up to the standards of your profession and, really, immerse yourself in common decency — the honest decency expected of a solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales. This is, as far as I can see, your best move. Prove that you are capable of ethical and honest behavior. </div> <bR> <div> I expect to hear from you within a month of this letter.</div> <bR> <div> Sincerely yours</div> <bR> <div> *********************************************************</div> <bR> <div> <B>November 15, 2007</B></div> <bR> <div> Dear Mr. Pitts-Tucker,</div> <bR> <div> I told you I expected to hear from you within a month of my last letter, which was sent to you in early October of 2007. For at least five years, you have never had the common decency to respond to me. This is not courteous or in keeping with your profession for <B>Section 17.01(7) of the Law Society’s Professional Guidelines</B> states that:</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 that it is a matter of common courtesy that you should reply to a letter even if you do not owe that person any professional duty and/or the letter has nothing to do with any of your clients or former client’s business dealings. But I am a person you have a professional duty toward, because of the unfulfilled "<B>undertaking</B>" and my letters have always been about the business scam your client ran. I have only asked you to do your obligated duty according to the law and prove "<B>good title</B>" for a "<B>incorporeal hereditament</B>" or the "<B>Feudal Principality of Halberstadt</B>" under the law of real property as expressed in the Deed of Transfer and Statutory Declarations, which you signed.<B> </B>I believe ignoring my letters is, in itself, an act of misconduct unbecoming a solicitor. Where is your common courtesy? Why won’t you deal with me? Never mind—I know. It is because you can’t prove "<B>good title</B>" and you knew that the sale was bogus.</div> <bR> <div> The whole point here is, if the title of Halberstadt was a legally valid and legitimate conveyance, it would be easy to prove, but because it is not, (the Imperial family—the owners were not involved), you must concoct some bizarre and way out reasons to explain why you failed to do your duty.</div> <bR> <div> It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that no sane man would throw away his career and his practice if he could prove that the Imperial family were really involved and actually sold the "<B>de jure</B>" title. But you can’t prove it. Yet, as stated, if it were an honest trade, there would be all kinds of ways to prove it really happened. It would be extremely easy! Your refusal to come up with anything, not even the slightest evidence of authenticity under these circumstances (a Tribunal hearing on this), is a sure sign that you knew it was fraudulent. Truthfully no one, who has half a brain, would throw away his career, chance some hefty law suits and perhaps have criminal charges thrown at him, etc., when he could prove or provide good evidence that it was legit. He’d find a way. </div> <bR> <div> The truth is, I believe, you were so mixed up in the fraud that you are standing on very dangerous ground----a mine field or on thin ice. Any false move and you could end up in a fraud investigation. I’ve talked to the Fraud Squad of the City of London and they are waiting to see what happens. There is no statute of limitations on this kind of crime. </div> <bR> <div> Any rational human being, in your circumstances, would jump at the chance to prove that the conveyance was legit—truly from the Imperial family as claimed, so he could be vindicated. But you cannot. Therefore, you must stretch the truth some more to cover your tracks and make up lame excuses that no one will believe—things that a "<B>responsible, honest and prudent</B>" solicitor with thirty years of experience would never do—all in a vain attempt to defend yourself.</div> <bR> <div> It sticks out like a sore thumb. You can’t prove that the Imperial family were actually a party to the conveyance. And if the "<B>de jure</B>" owners (the Imperial and Royal House of Prussia) were not involved, well, it is like me selling you the Eiffel Tower, or the continents of Asia and Africa, or, better yet, conveying Buckingham Palace to you by a legal Deed of Transfer and a Statutory Declaration legalized by Her Majesty’s Principal Minister of the Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs. The sale of the Principality of Halberstadt was a scam. Just admit it. It was all fraud and you know it.</div> <bR> <div> If you had insisted that your client obey the law and provide "<B>good title</B>" or you would cease to aid and abet his unlawful conveyances, then, at least <B>95%</B> of the fraud he perpetrated would never have taken place. Hardly anyone would have bought a title of nobility that ownership was not only questionable, but could never be proven. The whole scam never gave true ownership to anyone. What they received was not only "<B>defective,</B>" but "<B>bad title</B>" to their property. <B>"A bad title is one which conveys no property to a purchaser of an estate.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Geneva" ><B><U>www.lectlaw.com/def2/t030.htm</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Your irresponsible and reckless behavior and advice meant that no one ever received what they purchased through your con artist client, Antonio A. Boada, who successfully scammed, it is estimated, hundreds of innocent, unsuspecting people—many of them right under your nose—and by your signature on the conveyancing documents. And you "<B>knew or ought to have known</B>" this, especially because you were given compelling evidence, huge red flags, and serious warning signs, along with contact information in order to check out the compelling allegations you were given. As early as December 2000, I began sending evidence of fraud to you. But to your great discredit, you never made the attempt to check anything out. You turned a deaf ear to all of it. This reckless disregard for the law and what protects purchasers strongly suggests collusion—that you were an accomplice—an accessory to countless acts of crimes. Note the legal tests for such as given by the Law Society. You qualify under each one of them. <B>5.14</B> for a start in the Guideline of your profession states:</div> <bR> <div> <B>It is now clear that the accessory must have acted dishonestly in the sense that his conduct falls below what is required of an honest solicitor in the circumstances. [Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378] Honesty is judged objectively and inferences can be drawn where, for example, someone deliberately closes his eyes or ears, or deliberately fails to ask questions in case he learns something he would rather not know. </B>(Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378 and Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164) (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Geneva" ><B><U>www.lawsociety.org.uk/professional/conduct/guideonline/view=page.law?POLICYID=225074</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> n <B>5.9</B> of the same chapter, it discusses what case law suggests about the level of knowledge needed to make one culpable and guilty of malpractice. In every test suggested, you comes out smelling like a shyster—a heartless man who cares little about the law or the people who were victimized and ruined in some cases by the scam:</div> <bR> <div> <B>(a) actual knowledge; </B>(you knew what was going on or you would have found a way to prove the title was good)</div> <div> <B>(b) wilfully shutting one's eyes to the obvious; </B>(you turned a deaf ear to the clear and convincing evidence I sent and never checked any of it out, or you would have been alarmed and immediately acted on it—at least a "<B>responsible, honest and prudent</B>" man would have done so)</div> <div> <B>(c) wilfully and recklessly failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable man would have made; </B>(I sent you allegations of the most serious kind, but even though the crime of fraud reared its ugly head and was brought to your attention, you failed to use the contact information I sent to discover for yourself that it was true. I practically begged you to listen and open you eyes to see that I was being cheated and so were many others, but you "<B>willfully and recklessly failed to make such inquires</B>")</div> <div> <B>(d) knowledge of circumstances which would indicate the facts to an honest and reasonable man; </B>(there were too many red flags, too many serious alerts and alarming warning signs, the allegations were so serious and grievous, an honest man, an honest and responsible solicitor would have been alarmed and checked them out and would have discovered that I told the truth. But not you, you cried "<B>caveat emptor</B>" and defended your client’s right to rob and cheat people and give them nothing for their money, but the worthless papers, you provided. And why?—because the "<B>conditions of sale,</B>" which you as a solicitor sworn to uphold the law defended—yet the so-called "<B>conditions of sale</B>" made it so that your client could, you thought, and did commit the act of theft and would never be held accountable for it. What a great scheme you devised for theft to perpetuate itself over and over again) </div> <div> <B>(e) knowledge of circumstances which would put an honest and reasonable man on inquiry. (Ibid.) </B>(you knew Mr. Boada was using an alias on all the Deeds of Transfer and Statutory Declarations, yet you went along with it and aided and abetted his secrecy. Why?––when the guidelines specifically state that when an alias is being used, there is a strong likelihood of fraud and deception. I don’t believe you could be so blind, you knew what was going on. And when his honesty was questioned, you did nothing, but intimidate those who questioned him) (<B>parentheses added</B>) </div> <bR> <div> Mr. Boada wrote to Alan [name redacted] one of the victims of the scam on <B>February 14, 2003 </B>and stated:</div> <bR> <div> <B>We are most willing to provide these [the proof of "good title"] as far back as we can go through the statutorily decreed 15 years needed to legally prove title, though we have been advised and informed by Pitts-Tucker & Co. there is no legal obligation to do so. </B>(The Law Society has a copy of this e-mail)</div> <bR> <div> The reason given why there was "<B>no legal obligation to</B>" follow the law was the fact that the "<B>Terms & Conditions of Sales</B>" put all responsibility on the buyer. Hence, Mr. Boada did not feel a need to prove "<B>good title</B>" to anyone, nor did he benefit Mr. Williams or anyone else with any help or proof. Result—Mr. Boada could and did convey titles under Pitts-Tucker & Co.’s wrongful advice without ever proving "<B>good title</B>" or giving anyone proper ownership. This was the scam—the perfect situation for this crime. Mr. Boada could cheat people with impunity based on his solicitor’s advice.</div> <bR> <div> However, a solicitor has no excuse for not knowing the law, especially with thirty years of experience and practice in conveyancing and, of all things, declaring himself, that is, yourself, to be a professional expert in the "<B>sale and purchase of feudal titles.</B>" (See: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.pitts-tucker.co.uk</U></B></FONT>) You "<B>knew or ought to have known</B>" that your client’s "<B>conditions of sale</B>" was against the law. (<B>The</B> <B>Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999</B>) It was so "<B>imbalanced</B>" as to be the perfect design to protect an ugly con game, it was "<B>unfair,</B>" lopsided and in every way wrong to the point of possibly being criminal, but most importantly, they were so far out as to be "<B>null and void.</B>" And this law applies to real property contracts, in other words, to the conveyancing of "<B>incorporeal hereditaments</B>" or feudal titles, according to an important court ruling. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets</U></B><B><U>/unfair_contract_terms/oft143.pdf</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Hence, a "<B>reasonable, honest and prudent</B>" solicitor would never defend such wrongful terms or suggest they gave permission for his client to crookedly throw out the law of real property and ensure that the buyers will never really own what they are sold. What kind of solicitor would even suggest such a thing? One that is dishonest or more likely in on the take. Perhaps even the mastermind of the whole disgusting scheme.</div> <bR> <div> Your actions say louder than words could ever express that unless your feet are held to the fire, you will continue to ignore me as well as disregard conduct that is befitting and proper for your profession—like righting your wrongs and obeying the law. Very few others would treat me so incourteously and unprofessionally, especially to give total disregard to the compelling evidence of fraud and deceit I sent to you about your client’s trade in fakes and counterfeits, or advise your client that he is free to break the law and leave all his buyers empty handed never giving them "<B>good title</B>" to their property. This is not what a solicitor should be like, according to the guidelines of the Law Society. It is more typical of a person who is corrupt, disdainful, arrogant and unworthy of being a solicitor.</div> <bR> <div> Only dishonor should come to you, unless, of course, you can prove the impossible—that the property conveyed to me truly came from the Imperial family as claimed.<B> </B>Since you cannot prove a legitimate transaction actually took place, that is, because you cannot prove or even give any confirmable, reliable and verifiable evidence of "<B>good title,</B>" it is easy to see that the whole thing was a scam. </div> <bR> <div> Any nit wit would know that the best defense possible for you under the circumstances of an upcoming tribunal hearing would be to actually prove "<B>good title,</B>" but you cannot prove something false is true. Therefore, you prove by your actions that British Feudal Investments, Ltd. was a front for fraud and your name and your finger prints, in effect, are all over it. You are guilty of much worse than mere misconduct, you were involved in fraud and deception. Why? —because you would do whatever it takes to prove the Imperial family did sell the title, that is, that the title was legit if you could, but you can’t, so you are left with questionable and shaky excuses, which in and of themselves, prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that misconduct was the name of the game, but such also shows that fraud was at its root or at the core of the business. </div> <bR> <div> Hence, proof of "<B>good title</B>" was and is still the core issue. If "<B>good title</B>" was the center piece of each sale, no fraud would ever have occurred.</div> <bR> <div> I have discuss your case several times with the Fraud Squad of the City of London. They are very interested in the outcome of the tribunal. I firmly believe you will demonstrate more than adequate "<B>probable cause</B>" for a full scale investigation into this stinking mess for which you are chiefly to blame.</div> <bR> <div> I again invite you to either prove "<B>good title</B>" and thus fulfill your "<B>undertaking</B>" and the law, or discuss righting your wrongs. I ask you to start this process immediately, and I expect to hear from you within a month from the date on this letter. Otherwise, you demonstrate another act of misconduct.</div> <bR> <div> Sincerely yours, </div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Only if everyone makes complaints will something happen. It’s like the saying, “United we stand divided we fall.” Only when the authorities see that hundreds have been robbed and cheated, will they put a priority on this 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="id63.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor4"><U><B>Previous Page</B></U></A><B> / </B><A HREF="id65.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor6"><U><B>Next Page</B></U></A>    </div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>