Crooked Solicitor6

<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>   |   <A HREF="id64.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor5"><U>Crooked Solicitor5</U></A>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor6</B>   |   <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 Solicitor6</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>   |   <A HREF="id64.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor5"><U>Crooked Solicitor5</U></A>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor6</B>   |   <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>PLEADINGS</B></div> <bR> <div> January 6, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Dear Mr. Pitts-Tucker,</div> <bR> <div> You have not answered my last two invitations. But then again, you have not answered me for the last six years despite my reminders of your duty toward me and what is right. </div> <bR> <div> The following are some items of grave concern with how you botched this case and others, and how you are guilty of misconduct and probably even fraud. Why? Because you will not, and cannot, prove “good title” for the conveyance of the Principality of Halberstadt or any other sale of Mr. Boada’s. If you could, you would. But because you can’t, you must search for lame excuses. </div> <bR> <div> The point here is, you really have no leg to stand on. A plea of ignorance only means you were negligent in your duties and therefore guilty of misconduct. Ignorance of the law is no excuse especially for a solicitor or legal expert. Complicating the law and confusing the issues only makes you look incompetent and unworthy of the distinction of being a solicitor, because you get things all wrong. And excusing yourself on the basis of what others have done does not justify breaking the law, because legally you cannot get out of the legal fact that “you knew or ought to know” better being a professional in this field especially with over 30 years experience. </div> <bR> <div> The only honorable course open to you is to fulfill your “<B>undertaking</B>” to me and prove “<B>good title.</B>” But this is impossible and you know it. Hence, you must make a defense that is full of nonsense and will be easily seen for what it is---chicanery, ploys, tricks, but never having any substance. Your best bet is to be straightforward and honest. Otherwise, you will only make yourself look bad or worse.</div> <bR> <div> The following are just a few thoughts to consider: </div> <bR> <div>           <B>(1) </B>Mr. Pitts-Tucker, you advertise yourself to be an expert in the "<B>sale and purchase of feudal titles.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.pitts-tucker.co.uk</U></B></FONT>) If this is true, then how could you participate, in any form or fashion, in the conveyance of English, Welsh and Irish feudal baronies when they do not legally exist. You "<B>knew or ought to have known</B>" that feudal baronies were outlawed and forbidden in <B>1660</B> in England and Wales and in <B>1662</B> in Ireland by their respective Parliaments. Hence, as Kevin Boone, a legal writer wrote, “<B>. . . There are </B><I><B>no English feudal baronies</B></I><B>. Any that were still extant by the 17th century were absorbed into the peerage, and feudal tenure was abolished by an Act of Parliament in 1660. There have been a number of attempts to revive English feudal baronial titles in the courts, most recently in the late 19th century. None has been successful. </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.kevinboone.com/thetitlesgame.html</U></B></FONT>) Your flagrant disregard for the law makes me question your ability to practice law. </div> <bR> <div> Selling something that no longer legally exists is repugnant and fraudulent. It would be like me selling you the Royal Palace located in Durham. The problem in such a case is that there is no Palace in Durham. Hence, the question, what kind of solicitor would let his client practice conveying abolished, non-existent titles? These titles don’t even exist anymore unless the Queen herself validates and reactivates them. The heraldic expert, scholar and professor of law, Noel Cox declared, <B>"As early as the time of King Henry VI it was settled that a dignity could not be created by the mere conveyance of a baronial estate; that they were inalienable. A man could not purchase and enjoy an honour or barony without the King's consent</B>. (Except from Dr. Cox’s paper of the Irish Barony of Kells) </div> <bR> <div> Since you were the sole legal advisor to British Feudal Investments, Ltd., which regularly sold these nonentities, and are a self-proclaimed expert in the field of selling feudal titles, then it appears that you knew what you were doing or willfully and knowingly perpetuated, encouraged and defended Mr. Boada’s criminal activity in this scam. </div> <bR> <div> Remember, "<B>One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he or she gave assistance or encouragement [to it like you did for Mr. Boada] or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it [as you did with Mr. Boada especially after I sent you so much evidence that your client was committing fraud and, in addition, gave you the contact information to verify that everything I told you was true. With this in mind, it is obvious that you acted] with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime</B>.” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.answers.com/topic/accomplice</U></B></FONT>) Hence, with this definition, you are an accomplice. It was your legal duty to prevent crime, not promote, encourage or aid and abet it. </div> <bR> <div>           <B>(2)</B> 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>" (The Law Society has copies of the website) In other words, you being the legal advisor and an expert in the “<B>sale and purchase of feudal titles,</B>” to British Feudal Investments, Ltd., according to your website and Mr. Boada’s. You are responsible for what took place. </div> <bR> <div> In your <B>March 14, 2003</B> letter of defense to the Law Society, you stated that "<B>the sale of feudal titles is to say the least a recondite </B>[‘<B>recondite,’</B> according to the dictionary means ‘<B>difficult to penetrate; incomprehensible to one of ordinary understanding or knowledge type of market. . . .’].</B>" In your <B>March 14, 2003</B> letter of defense to the Law Society, you confessed your ignorance. You stated that you had “<B>no personal knowledge nor training whatsoever to draw such a statutory declaration,</B>” because you had “<B>no knowledge of the particular feudal title concerned which was foreign and not English.</B>” If this field was so difficult and complicated you that you needed Mr. Boada, a known con artist, to help you do things right, you should not have been involved in any of it---much less advertise that you are an expert in the “sale and purchase of feudal titles.” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.pitts-tucker.co.uk</U></B></FONT>) May I remind you that <B>6.1(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</U></B></FONT> </div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>/downloads/Profethics_Advocacy.pdf</U></B></FONT>) You are admitted to being “<B>incompetent to handle</B>” or operate in this “<B>recondite</B>” field, therefore, you are guilty of misconduct. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has made it clear that it is a serious error for a solicitor to agree to be instructed in a field in which the solicitor has insufficient expertise.</div> <bR> <div>           <B>(3)</B> What kind of solicitor would give an excuse to the Law Society that he was "<B>amanuensis</B>" or acting like a mindless, uninvolved person “<B>employed [only] to write from dictation or to copy manuscript</B>” for his client. (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.m-w.com</U></B></FONT>) You are a solicitor, not a secretary? Legally you "<B>knew or ought to have known</B>" that. In other words, you know full well that you have a legal duty to uphold the law and not to act like a brainless puppet or copy cat in responding to your client’s instructions. You have a much more lofty calling, that is, “<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 [as you have done].</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>)</div> <bR> <div> With thirty years of professional experience, you "<B>knew or ought to have known</B>" that you were supposed to maintain the minimum practice standards for your profession or you could be held accountable and suffer the horrific consequences. The point here is:</div> <bR> <div> <B>When it comes to those individuals who engage in activities or jobs that require special knowledge or training (doctors, lawyers, pilots, etc.) the standard of behavior is more exacting. The standard expected for duties relating to those activities or jobs is based on what a “reasonable person” with the required knowledge and skill would or would not do under the circumstances. </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.personalinjuryhotline.com/negligence.asp</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Being "<B>amanuensis</B>" doesn’t cut it—it is an admission of being negligent. Such irresponsibility is shocking especially in light of the fact that it is estimated that hundreds of people have been defrauded right under your nose, which suggests that you were in on it, because you’re not mentally retarded. And you were given clear and convincing evidence of fraud in early <B>2001</B>, but refused to check it out by writing or contacting the experts, and the noble and royal families I gave you the addresses for. Yet, by your own self-proclaimed standard, you are guilty for you stated in your <B>April 27, 2001</B> letter to me that, “<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>” (The Law Society has a copy of this letter) </div> <bR> <div> What kind of solicitor would proclaim the above and not fulfill his duty when the specter of fraud actually was raised and substantial evidence was presented? Would he turn a deaf ear to it? Any rational thinking man would have been alarmed and done something constructive about it, but you did nothing. This was a serious breach of the ethical trust reposed and expected of solicitor. Professionalism demands it. </div> <bR> <div> In <B>Bolton -v- The Law Society 1 W.L.R. 512; [1994] 2 All E.R. 486</B>, it stated that a solicitor must be a person of probity, integrity and trustworthiness and must not fall below those high standards—that is, must be a person of complete and confirmed integrity. Would an honest solicitor merely act as "<B>amanuensis</B>" with his client when a serious accusation of fraud has occurred? So serious is any involvement of a solicitor in a crime that they could easily lose their right to practice law on that basis alone. Note the Law Society’s statement in the year <B>2000</B> on this theme: </div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . the Law Society’s experience that solicitors know they stand to lose their credibility and their livelihood if they are in any way connected to crime. They know that, in order to retain public confidence, their professional body always takes swift action to sanction them severely. . . .</B></div> <div> <B>Solicitors are relieved of their duty of confidentiality in specific instances - for example, where there is prima facie evidence of fraud or another crime, particularly if the solicitor realises that a client has used him/her to facilitate a crime. </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/eif/InternetPoliciesSite</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <B><U>/Crime/Comments/LawSociety.html</U></B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <div> 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>) You cannot be a mindless automaton or be in a stupor or “<B>amanuensis</B>” in anything you do as a professional or even privately. To do so is practically a crime, not just malpractice. It is worse because, I warned you and gave you evidence of fraud a long time ago and you continued to support a known con artist. </div> <bR> <div> (By the way, if Mr. Boada were not a con artist, he would have proven to the world a long time ago this fact instead of losing his business or livelihood, because he couldn’t prove he was an honest man or ran an above board business. Mr. Boada could not prove himself innocent, just like you cannot prove “<B>good title,</B>” in face of the fact that the whole deal was an ugly scam.)</div> <bR> <div> It is also important to point out that:</div> <bR> <div> <B>A solicitor may be found criminally liable if [he or] she lends assistance to a client in execution of a prohibited transaction [such as, selling nonexistent, or worse, legally abolished or outlawed merchandise] or in performance of prohibited activity [such as aiding and abetting a con artist who regularly sells falsehoods].</B>".<B> (</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_practice/PP%20-%20Handout%20C.ppt#2</U></B></FONT><B>)</B></div> <bR> <div> It was your solemn duty to check out the allegations and to report fraud, not to hide it, ignore it or pretend it didn’t exist. This lack of involvement and effort to do your duty was a serious act of neglect and therefore an act of serious malevolent misconduct and malpractice. </div> <bR> <div>           <B>(4)</B> How could you say to the Law Society that you were not the “<B>conveyancing solicitor</B>” when you were the only legal advisor connected to or involved with British Feudal Investments, Ltd.? There was no one else. Besides Mr. Boada’s website stated that you did all the “<B>conveyances</B>” and you admitted to the Law Society in your <B>September 29, 2003</B> letter to them that “<B>sometime prior to January 2001</B>” that you were “<B>able to changed some aspects of his [Mr. Boada’s BFI, Ltd’s.] website by agreement with him which referred to myself,</B>” but you did not change the fact that his website stated that you did all the “<B>conveyances.</B>” You were the only person in the company who was licensed to legally do any conveyancing for an “<B>incorporeal hereditaments</B>” under the <B>Law of Property</B> and under the <B>Solicitors Act 1974</B>.</div> <bR> <div> As the only legal person involved, you were responsible for good solid legal advice. If you were not the conveyancing solicitor, then note that it is an act of misconduct to be involved with an unqualified person doing conveyances. The <B>Law Society’s Guide</B> (<B>25A(3)</B>, states, <B>“Solicitors should . . . refuse to have any dealings with any unqualified person carrying on a conveyancing business [such as Mr. Boada did]. . . .” </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.lawsociety.org.uk/professional/conduct/guideonline/view=page.law?POLICYID</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <B><U>=582&PARENT=564</U></B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <div> So either you were the “<B>conveyancing solicitor</B>” guilty of not providing “<B>good title</B>,” and failing to fulfill your “<B>undertaking</B>” to me and your “<B>duty to disclose</B>” any fatal defects of title. Or you were guilty of misconduct is permitting an unqualified person to do the conveyancing work. Either way you committed gross acts of misconduct that damaged my life considerably. And either way, you still owe me verifiable proof of “<B>good title</B>” by virtue of your “<B>undertaking.</B>”</div> <bR> <div> As the sole legal advisor or conveyancing solicitor, it is really one and the same, because either way “<B>. . . the solicitor's responsibility [obligation and duty] is to make sure that the all the legal formalities involved in conveyancing are observed.” </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.matthewpaull.co.uk/convey.html</U></B></FONT>) For this failure you are to blame. Consider the following:</div> <bR> <div> <B>The giving of good legal advice involves the obtaining of an understanding of what the client wants to achieve, the checking of relevant documents, having a sound understanding of relevant principles of law or researching finer points of law, and then explaining to the client what options are available</B>. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://lawyersconveyancing.com/reference.asp</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Didn’t you believe you had a duty and obligation to give sound legal advice that is in tune with the realities of the law? Were you doing a half baked job or skipping corners? Or didn’t you give a damn? That kind of substandard work is disheartening to say the least. It certainly hurt me a great deal and I am still suffering because you refused, and still continue in your failure as a solicitor to fulfill your firm’s “<B>undertaking</B>” and prove “<B>good title</B>” or right your wrongs.</div> <bR> <div> Some further evidences of you being the conveyancing solicitor are as follows.</div> <bR> <div> You state in your <B>March 14, 2003</B> defense letter to the Law Society that the sale is an “<B>agreement already made,</B>” that is, that it is a done deal. In other words, as a way of saying you were not the <B>conveyancing solicitor</B>, you say the sale, the contract, etc. is already made before you are ever involved. But the problem with this argument is, “<B>Conveyancing Does Not Start Until There Has Been A Sale.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.relv.com.au/conveyancing/conveyancing.asp</U></B></FONT>) The point here is:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Given that conveyancing is the process of transferring ownership of real estate from one person to another, there is no need for conveyancing services until such time as a sale has taken place. It is only after the sale has been effected that the purchaser acquires the right to require a transfer of ownership. (Ibid.)</B></div> <bR> <div> You state that you receive an “<B>executed deed of transfer</B>” when it is sent to you by Mr. Boada. (<B>March 14, 2003</B> letter) You state that “<B>the deed of transfer was not drawn by me nor was the statutory declaration.</B>” (Ibid.) Fortunately, in the <B>December 11, 2000</B> letter to Dr. (<B>name redacted</B>), you revealed the true nature of your relationship and responsibility. (The Law Society has a copy of this letter) You stated, “<B>We primarily check the drafting of the Deeds of Transfer. . . .</B>” (Ibid.) Interestingly, this is the work of a <B>conveyancing solicitor</B> who is supervising others. Note, “<B>In England and Wales this is usually done by a solicitor or a licensed conveyancer. Either may employ or supervise an unqualified conveyancer</B>.” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conveyancing</U></B></FONT>) Unqualified assistants, like Mr. Boada, under the supervision of a solicitor or licensed conveyancer can do the work of “<B>preparing sale and purchase documentation for clients to sign e.g. contracts, TR1s, SDLT1s and SDLT60s and completing Mortgage Deeds.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.totaljobs.com/Jobseeking/job28270136.html</U></B></FONT>) In such a situation, the supervisor will “<B>check the drafting of the Deeds of Transfer,</B>” etc. exactly as you described what you do for Mr. Boada’s company British Feudal Investments, Ltd. Hence, here is an unmistakable admission that you were acting as the <B>conveyancing solicitor</B>. </div> <bR> <div> You also state in your <B>March 14, 2003</B> letter that “<B>completion is achieved when the legalised deed of transfer and/or statutory declaration are sent out to the purchaser</B>.” That is, your firm sends it out after they have checked it out, notarized it and legalised it.<B> </B>This is another admission that you were the <B>conveyancing solicitor.</B></div> <bR> <div> But you do more than merely look at the legal documents, you corrects them. This is totally contradictory to your defense statement that, “<B>As a solicitor taking a declaration I believe I have no duty to examine the contests of the declaration as such</B>.” (<B>March 14, 2007</B> letter)<B> </B>You do check the legal documents like a responsible supervising <B>conveyancing solicitor</B> would and should do.<B> </B>Example, when I discovered a misspelling in all three pages of the “<B>Deed of Transfer</B>” and sent it back to you, your firm corrected and you intialed them, not Mr. Boada. On <B>September 13, 2000</B>, Naffisa Skeikh of Pitt–Tucker & Co. wrote, “<B>I will be sending you the Deed of Transfer for Halberstadt, as amended shortly</B>.” Then on <B>September 20, 2000</B>, she wrote, “<B>You will see the first two pages replaced as corrected, while the third has been corrected and initialed by Roger Pitts-Tucker</B>.” That is, they replaced two pages with the exact same type, print and paper as the originals, and Mr. Pitts-Tucker corrected a spelling error by pen and initialed it on the third page where all the signatures were. All of this work was all done by<B> </B>your firm and you initialed it.<B> </B>Again, Mr. Boada was not involved in any of it. To prove that, that the corrections were completed by Mr. Pitts-Tucker not that this all took place during the time period while your firm was trying to contact Mr. Boada about my earnest complaints and requests for proof that the transaction was legit and valid. Ms. Sheikh wrote in her <B>September 20, 2000</B> letter, “<B>I note your e-mail of 18/9 to Tony Boada. I will endeavor to get the answers you have requested</B>.” In her earlier <B>September 13, 2000</B> letter, she wrote, “<B>I am endeavoring to get answers to your questions from BFI</B>.” In other words, she temporarily could not contact Mr. Boada as he was unavailable during the time the corrections were made by your firm. (The Law Society has a copy of all these letters) </div> <bR> <div> Conclusion: it is obvious that you were behaving like a <B>conveyancing solicitor</B>, and therefore were responsible for a number of important legal requirements, such as, “<B>good title</B>” documents and a “<B>duty to disclose</B>” any major defects of title. </div> <bR> <div> By definition, “‘<B>conveyancing work’ is confined to the clerical tasks associated with arranging for the transfer of ownership from one person to another.” </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.lawyersconveyancing.com.au</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>/reference.asp</U></B></FONT>)  As stated on Pressroom 2002, “<B>Solicitors only prepare the paper work . . . for property documentation and other situations required under the civil law</B>.” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>www.legalpundits</B></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>.indiatimes.com/press02.htm</B></FONT>)  They should give “<B>due diligence</B>” in advising their clients as well. So a “<B>conveyancer,</B>” in this case a <B>conveyancing solicitor</B>, is “<B>one whose business is to draw up conveyances of property, as deeds, mortgages, leases, etc.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://simplestartpage.com</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>/Convelyancer.html_2313Co</U></B></FONT>)  Or, have one’s assistant or assistants do so. But you were the one who was ultimately responsible, therefore, you did the checks and corrections. Again, this is what a conveyancing solicitor would and should do. The point is, “<B>Once the conveyancing solicitors have carried out all of the necessary checks the transfer of ownership can proceed.</B>”(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.itplusweb.com</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> There was no doubt in Mr. Boada’s mind, or on his website, who was the <B>conveyancing solicitor</B>. Mr. Boada testified in his letter of <B>March 5, 2003</B> to you, a letter which you included with your <B>March 14, 2003</B> response letter 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>” If so, why didn’t you actually do this? Mr. Boada obviously knew who was the <B>conveyancing solicitor</B> and what his duty was—to prove “<B>good title.</B>” Why didn’t you know? </div> <bR> <div> As an additional 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, the vendor or seller, stated on <B>December 16, 2002</B> that, “<B>Pitts-Tucker & Co., which is a firm of solicitors, handled all [not some, but all] legal transactions from start to finish</B>.” (The Law Society has a copy of this letter) This is true, even if Mr. Boada typed out the initial Deeds and Statutory Declarations so the responsible authority—the conveyancing solicitor could check them out and make sure that they were proper.<B> </B></div> <bR> <div> Giving further evidence testimony of who was the conveyancing solicitor, Ms. Montalvo speaking for Mr. Boada said, “<B>The solicitors validate the titles in England</B>.” (Ibid.) This validation or the “<B>deducing of title</B>” is one of the major duties of a conveyancing solicitor. Mr. Boada’s website also declared that “<B>All such conveyances [the conveying of ‘feudal titles of nobility . . . under the law of property. . . .’] are done by our specialised, fully licensed attorneys. . . .” </B>(Mr. Boada’s website under “<B>Purchase Documents and Guarantees</B>”) Under “<B>Our Firm</B>” on his website, Mr. Boada identified the principal solicitor, who does “<B>all</B>” the “<B>conveyances,” as “Mr. R. A, Pitts-Tucker</B>.” (The Law Society has a copy of Mr. Boada’s website)</div> <div> It is obvious as the nose on your face what your true legal relationship was with Mr. Boada and BFI, Ltd. To deny this only makes you look worse. It is called denial---living in a fantasy that no one will notice the truth, but it is just too obvious what you were. It sticks out like a sore thumb---especially the fact that you failed to do your duty.</div> <bR> <div>         <B>  </B><B>(5)</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>According to Paul Kreling, an English barrister, the whole purpose of the <B>Solicitors Act 1974</B> when referring to <B>conveyancing</B> was to protect the buyer. He wrote, “<B>The present conveyancing system purports [that is, has the seminal intention] to have two main aims [or purposes]: the first is to protect the purchaser against ‘quasi legal defects’; the second is to establish the title of the vendor.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.libertarian.co.uk</U></B><B><U> /lapubs/legan/legan011.pdf</U></B></FONT>) What kind of solicitor would support, defend or encourage a system which ensured that none of these protections would exist in his client’s company? </div> <bR> <div> The point here is, being sold a feudal title of nobility without proof of “<B>good title</B>” is a serious breach of well-establish and well-respected moral and ethical values as well as the laws created to perpetuate them. The reason why this is such a serious offense is really obvious, because the failure to provide “<B>good title</B>” is the same as conveying “<B>bad title:</B>”---“<B>A bad title is one which conveys no property to a purchaser of an estate.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.lectlaw.com/def2/t030.htm</U></B></FONT>) It is an act of theft or robbery. But this was the sum total of the scam. Hundreds of people were conned out of a large sums of money and receive nothing in return, but a worthless unsupportable deed that could not be defended. Mr. Boada wrote in his book <B>Instant Aristocracy:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Titles whose source cannot or will not verify their legitimacy [such as mine who deny having sold any title] will, in the end, wreck havoc on the social integrity of the holder. A person holding and maintaining a title that is unverifiable [such as mine] is likely to be listed in such ominous books and publications as the </B><I><B>Dictionary of the False Nobility--</B></I><B>a massive work that lists thousands of bogus titles and their purported holders. Such a listing is a great embarrassment and has destroyed many social careers begun on the wrong foot by obtaining a title of dubious legitimacy. Far from advancing one socially, such a title is likely to sink a person before he or she ever gets off the ground. </B>(Mr. Boada’s book is still for sale on the Internet---it is full of lies and scams) </div> <bR> <div> Do you care a wick that BFI sold me such “<B>a title of dubious legitimacy</B>” that cannot be verified as described above?—one that would "<B>wreck havoc</B>" and one "<B>likely to sink a person before he or she ever gets off the ground?</B>" My title is obviously “<B>unverifiable,</B>” because your way of doing business is never to provide “<B>good title</B>” to anyone. Therefore, no one was given ownership for what they bought. Without proof of “<B>good title,</B>” there is no real conveyance at all—nothing is actually conveyed but a false idea. It would be like you buying Buckingham Palace from me. I could supply you with a <B>Deed of Transfer</B> and a <B>Statutory Declaration</B> and have it notarize, but the missing link would be no proof that the owners, the royal family, actually authorized the sale. In my case, you refused, even though you promised me this proof in the “<B>undertaking</B>,” that is, evidence that the Imperial and Royal House of Hohenzollern were rally involved in the sale. This is diametrically opposed to what the <B>Law of Property</B> was created for, because "<B>The [whole] system of conveyancing is designed to ensure that the buyer gets the land [or intangible real property in this case] together with all the rights that go with it, and knows about any restrictions in advance.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://encycl.opentopia</U></B></FONT> </div> <div> <B><U>.com/term/Conveyancing</U></B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) This is to protect the buyer from scoundrels and charlatans like your client Mr. Boada, whose wrongful system denied the buyer the privilege of ever owning what he bought. </FONT></div> <bR> <div> Now, think about it, how could you, as an ethical solicitor, condone the idea of cheating me out of “<B>good title</B>” especially when your firm gave an “<B>undertaking</B>” that the documents that proved such would be supplied to me? Proof of “<B>good title</B>” really is the central issue. It is at the heart and soul of the matter because the lack of “<B>good title</B>” is the issue that dominates or is an underlying factor in all of the complaints. But that is what the scam was all about---selling people falsehoods and who would want to try to prove “<B>good title</B>” on fraudulent merchandise? </div> <bR> <div> It would be like me selling you the country of Romania. Again, I could provide you with a <B>Deed of Transfer</B> and a <B>Statutory Declaration</B>, but I could not provide “<B>good title,</B>” chiefly because I do not own the country of Romania. Similarly, you cannot prove “<B>good title</B>” for the principality of Halberstadt, because Mr. Boada never owned it or had any lawful right from the Imperial family of Germany to sell it. The Imperial family has denied a number of times ever knowing Mr. Boada or ever having any connection to him or any of his so-called organizations. I sent you their first letter in early 2001, which you failed to check out. (See <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.phoneynobletitles.com/id54.htm</U></B></FONT> for later and even more emphatic letters from the Imperial family showing that the whole thing was a scam)</div> <bR> <div>           <B>(6) </B>In the <B>November 2000 Statutory Declaration</B> of Mr. Boada, it stated that “<B>one of the stipulations of the aforementioned appointment was my legal agreement to maintain the privacy of the shareholders [the owners and therefore the sellers] and directors of the above mentioned Hohenzollern Family institutions.</B>” How can one be given “<B>good title</B>” when the owners of the title were to remain anonymous and secret? No real proof could ever be established if such was the case. The former owners would remain forever hidden. This was an obvious ploy to hide the fact that the whole affair was a sham. In other words, if the owners never support or uphold the sale, then it becomes unsupportable and the title of ownership becomes fatally defective. Again, “<B>good title</B>” becomes impossible. But such a fatal defect was, by law, supposed to be revealed before any sale became final. This is merely another example of a law broken and flagrantly disregarded. Note the following, which is common knowledge required for conveying property: </div> <bR> <div> <B>Where a seller contracts to sell land [or an incorporeal hereditament], he or she is bound to disclose to the intending purchaser prior to contracting all latent [that is, hidden flaws, imperfections and] defects in his or her title [or proof of ownership]. . . . A seller can exclude liability for not disclosing a latent defect in title only if it is one of which he or she neither knew nor ought to have known. (Law Commission Report: </B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc254.pdf</U></B></FONT><B>) (For the basis of the vendor’s duty, see Charles Harpum, “Selling Without Title: a Vendor’s Duty of Disclosure?” (1992) 108 LQR 280) </B></div> <bR> <div> The so-called agreement was supposedly made on <B>February 21, 2000</B> according to the <B>November 2000 Statutory Declaration. </B>It should have been disclosed before the final payment was made in <B>March of 2000</B>. Again, “<B>. . . the solicitor's responsibility [obligation and duty] is to make sure that the all the legal formalities involved in conveyancing are observed.” </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.matthewpaull.co.uk/convey.html</U></B></FONT>) You, as the solicitor involved, should have made sure that this well-known defect was disclosed. This was another serious act of gross misconduct. You “<B>knew or ought to have known</B>” this, but because of a lack of “<B>due diligence,</B>” you broke another law and morally you should make things right with me and not just cry “<B>caveat emptor</B>” or, in effect, give me the finger. Your lack of integrity meant the many many people were given defective title to their purchases. A man with 30 years experience should obviously know better than to do something so foul and crooked. <B>“A title is said to be defective when the vendor does not have any conclusive evidence to prove ownership,”</B> which is exactly what happened to me and many others.<B> </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/oct202006/realty9451020061019.asp</U></B></FONT>) And you are responsible for this. Remember, according to <B>Section 17.01</B> on <B>Fairness</B> in the <B>Guide</B> it states: <B>Solicitors must not act, whether in their professional capacity or otherwise, towards anyone in a way which is fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to their position as solicitors. </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.guide-on-line.lawsociety.org.uk</U></B></FONT>) Yet, you did so. You broke the law designed to protect buyers and thus set up a system in which your client could rob people by never providing a “good and marketable title” to anyone. </div> <bR> <div> With this freedom to cheat people given to him by his solicitor, Mr. Boada could make up things and sell titles he never owned or never even existed---titles he had no lawful right to sell. It would be like me selling you Buckingham Palace or the nation of Israel and Mexico. The reason why “<B>good title</B>” cannot be provided is fraud, which is why “<B>good title</B>” is the central issue. If you had done your duty, no one would have been robbed by your client, because he would have to shown proof of ownership or the legal right to sell in every single case, and all, if any, latent defects to title would have been disclosed ahead of time. This would have stopped the fraud in its tracks if the laws were followed to ensure buyers were protected.</div> <bR> <div>           <B>(7)</B> One of your excuses for not providing “<B>good title</B>” was the illegal, imbalanced, and unfair “<B>conditions of sale</B>” which you espoused as a lame defense for not obeying the law. For one, this defense against me was not even mentioned until a year later. It was an after-thought, a ploy or trick and therefore an outright lie. But you were caught in this lie, because earlier copies of Mr. Boada’s website did not have any “<B>conditions of sale</B>” on them. I got these from web archives, before Mr. Boada blocked them. I printed them and sent photocopies to the Law Society so they would have proof that this was a cock and bull story or complete nonsense. But this excuse is actually even more incriminating than a malicious lie. Those very “<B>conditions of sale</B>” were against the law. They did not measure up to the standard, which was designed to protect consumers.</div> <bR> <div> Now lets look at the <B>"Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999."</B> Everything I quote will be from the <B>Office of Fair Trading’s </B>"<B>Unfair Standard Terms</B>" leaflet, which can be found on the internet at <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/unfair_contract_terms/oft143.pdf</U></B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>First</B> of all, "<B>contracts for interest in land,</B>"such as the oral or implied contract that most people had with Mr. Boada "<B>are within the scope of these regulations." </B>(p. 4) (The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Directive and Regulations apply to land contracts {<I><B>the London Borough of Newham v Khatun, Zeb, Iqbal and the Office of Fair Trading </B></I>[2004] EWCA Civ 55}). (p. 4)</div> <bR> <div> <B>Second</B>, "<B>The main aim of the Regulations is to protect consumers against one-sided contracts favouring businesses," </B>which is exactly what the "<B>Conditions of Sale</B>" scheme were designed for, that is, to create a one-sided or lop-sided contract favoring the business to the point that proving "<B>good titles,</B>" being honorable, obeying the law, being honest would be rendered unnecessary. (p. 1) Then one could be as reckless and cheat people as much as one can get away with it. After all, the "<B>Conditions of Sale</B>" make it so the victim (the purchaser) always loses in every deal and has absolutely no redress.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Third</B>, the regulations "<B>apply to any standard terms in the contract,</B>" which "<B>are devised by a business in advance, not individually negotiated with the consumer.</B>" "<B>. . . Typically they are found in the ‘small print’ on the back of order forms and bills and so on.</B>" (p. 2)</div> <bR> <div> <B>Fourth</B>, "<B>Regulation 7 requires that plain and intelligible language is used in consumer contracts. A term is open to challenge as unfair if it could put the consumer at a disadvantage because he or she is not clear about its meaning – even if its meaning could be worked out by a lawyer.</B>" Some of the Boada/Pitts-Tucker "<B>Conditions of Sale</B>" are practically unintelligible or mixed up and confusing.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Fifth</B>, "<B>A standard term is unfair if it creates a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer, contrary to the requirement of good faith.</B>" Mr. Boada’s "<B>Conditions of Sale</B>" <B># 4 </B>seriously imbalanced the contract by such a large degree that it enabled the seller to violate his "<B>obligations</B>" to prove "<B>good title.</B>" It also was so lop-sided that it denied the buyer his lawful right under the law to require proof of "<B>good title.</B>" And this was to the great "<B>detriment of the consumer,</B>" who ended up empty handed by the deal. The whole deal was contrary to "<B>good faith</B>." (p. 2)</div> <bR> <div> <B>Sixth</B>, unfair and therefore illegal <B>terms and conditions </B>all <B>"have the aim or effect of reducing the consumer’s rights. . . .</B>" In other words, the terms "<B>cause an imbalance – by altering the balance in rights and obligations that the law would have struck if left to itself</B>." <B>"The imbalance must be significant in practical terms . . . [and] be capable of causing detriment to consumers.</B>" (p. 3) The imbalance created was so serious that it meant that no buyer, not one of them, got "<B>good title,</B>" that is, everyone was gypped or lost every penny of the thousands of dollars they paid, because what I will call the Boada/Pitts-Tucker scam denied their obligation under the <B>Law of Property Act 1925, 1969</B> to provide proof of "<B>good title.</B>" </div> <bR> <div> <B>Seventh</B>, "<B>Good faith</B>"—there was no "<B>good faith</B>" in what they did—the <B>terms and conditions </B>made it so they could be exploitive, deceitful, dishonest and unfair and ruin people financially and get away with it. They certainly ruined me and I still suffer from it today. Instead of <B>"good faith,</B>" they exhibited <B>bad faith</B>. But the whole thing was set up to scam people from the get go.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Eighth</B>, the following list are the major categories of illegal and unfair terms:</div> <bR> <div> <B>1) Consumers being mislead about their legal rights </B>(like if you’ve bought the feudal title, you cannot raise any objections to its validity afterwards—you’re stuck with it—<B>caveat emptor</B>---there’s nothing you can do, but lump it---of course the company is not obligated to provide you with any evidence as is required by the Law of Property, etc.) (Purchasers were grossly mislead about their legal rights)</div> <div> <B>2) Consumers being denied full redress if things go wrong</B> (You told me <B>"caveat emptor" </B>that there was nothing I could do because of the conditions of sale that did not even exist when I purchased.) (Purchasers were effectively denied full redress or were lead to think they didn’t have any rights)</div> <div> <B>3)</B> <B>Consumers being tied into the contract unfairly</B></div> <div> <B>4) The business not having to perform its obligations </B>(like obey the law and prove "<B>good title</B>” or disclose latent defects of title. This corrupt and illegal idea was at the very heart and core of the “<B>conditions of sale</B>”) (This has been my objection for years for I and many others have been wronged)</div> <div> <B>5) Consumers unfairly losing prepayments if the contract is cancelled</B></div> <div> <B>6) The business varying the terms after they have been agreed. . . .</B></div> <div> <B>7) Consumers being subject to unfair penalties </B>(p. 4) </div> <bR> <div> <B>Ninth</B>, the basic principle is that "<B>fairness and balance require that both parties to a contact are equally bound by it, and equally liable to pay compensation for failure to abide by it.</B>" (p. 10) Mr. Boada’s "<B>Conditions of Sale</B>" are clearly outside the boundaries of fairness, balance, honesty and decency. No honest business man would set up such a corrupt system to ruin his clients. The terms are unreasonable and hurt a lot of people. You are supposed to be a legal expert, an officer of the court and to honor and obey the law yourself. Therefore, you “<B>knew or ought to have known</B>” better especially after 30 years of legal experience. As the sole legal advisor to BFI, Ltd., you defended these “<B>conditions of sale.</B>” I don’t know how you could justify ethically repugnant conditions, especially ones that were against the law, but you did. And the fact that you did makes you are culpable and responsible for ensuring and encouraging the fact that perhaps hundreds of people would and did get hurt, because none of them who have "<B>good title</B>" to their suppose property.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Tenth</B>, the <B><U>grand conclusion</U></B><I><B><U>:</U></B></I> "<B>Terms which deny or restrict liability if goods prove to be defective are also banned by other legislation: </B><B><U>they are void and unenforceable</U></B><B>, and their use may give rise to prosecution as an offence.</B>" (p. 11) In England and Wales – the <B>Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order 1976</B> is especially pertinent to this. The point is, not only are Mr. Boada’s "<B>Conditions of Sale</B>" unfair, but they are considered illegal, null and void, and unenforceable according to this law. Therefore, they are banned as unusable and ethically inconsistent, because they promoted an ugly and black-hearted scam. </div> <bR> <div> I am especially miffed about your not providing "<B>good title,</B>" because if you required that <B>one critical item</B>,<B> then at least 70 to 80% of the crimes would never have taken place</B>, but your neglect enabled everyone to be defrauded of truly possessing what they bought. </div> <bR> <div> <B>Eleventh</B>, "<B>Disclaimers which deny or limit liability for negligences [as the Boada/Pitts-Tucker conditions of sale did] are particularly liable to be considered unfair. They can leave consumers without redress for problems which are the supplier’s [or conveyors] fault. And such disclaimers undermine the incentive for suppliers [or conveyors] to take reasonable care.</B>" (p. 10) “<B>Reasonable care</B>” in obeying the law would have prevented all the ugliness that took place. No one would have been left empty handed as I was.</div> <bR> <div> I could have written a lot more, and I might yet, because I hope you get the picture that you ought to either prove “<B>good title</B>” or right your wrongs. Since you can’t prove “<B>good title,</B>” you might start thinking about how you can make things right with me and thus provide some mitigation for the Law Society charges. Also, if you are upfront with the Law Society, they may think you are redeemable, rather than a hopeless case, who will merely go on disobeying the law and interpreting the law in ways that are outside the norms or standards of your profession.</div> <bR> <div> I look forward to hearing from you.</div> <bR> <div> Sincerely yours, </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="id64.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor5"><U><B>Previous Page</B></U></A><B> / </B><A HREF="id67.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor7"><U><B>Next Page</B></U></A></div> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>