Crooked Solicitor7

<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>   |   <A HREF="id65.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor6"><U>Crooked Solicitor6</U></A>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor7</B>   |   <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 Solicitor7</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>   |   <A HREF="id65.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor6"><U>Crooked Solicitor6</U></A>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor7</B>   |   <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>FURTHER EVIDENCE</B></div> <bR> <div> January 8, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Dear Mr. Pitts-Tucker,</div> <bR> <div> In my previous letter, I gave a lot of evidence that you were the <B>conveyancing solicitor. </B>In looking over some of the material I have I found a <B>March 28, 2003 </B>letter to John Black from you. Mr. Black had purchased the "<B>Lordship of the Manor of Mount Nagle (Ireland)</B>" on <B>March 22, 2002</B>, You stated to him in this letter that you were in fact the <B>conveyancing solicitor</B> for you wrote, "<B>I represented the seller in this transaction. . . .</B>" (The Law Society has a copy of this letter) Like I have been trying to tell you, most if not all of your excuses are terribly lame and most people can see through them with very little effort. Therefore, the only honorable course for you is to fess up, or try to do the impossible---provide “<B>good title</B>” like you were supposed to. The following demonstrate more wrongs you committed and more of the poor excuses you gave. </div> <bR> <div> <B>(1) </B>Knowing how binding it is and that it is your firm’s personal guarantee, how could you in good faith give me an “<B>undertaking</B>” to prove that a valid transaction took place, or in other words, provide “<B>good title,</B>” and not fulfill it? This “<B>undertaking</B>” was written for and in behalf of your client, that he would send the “<B>documents</B>” I had “<B>requested</B>” which “<B>are being collected for photocopy</B>.” I was told that my<B> “request is being dealt with and not ignored and that you should be receiving the documents in question shortly. </B>The “<B>documents”</B> I requested were to prove that the <B>incorporeal hereditament</B> (the feudal principality of Halberstadt) conveyed to me was actually/truly conveyed from the rightful owners---the Imperial Hohenzollerns as stated in the <B>Deed of Transfer</B> and <B>Statutory Declarations</B>. This is very important especially when you consider that failure to do so is misconduct. Note: “<B>A solicitor who fails to honour an undertaking is prima facie guilty of professional misconduct.” </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.lawsociety.org.uk/professional/conduct</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <B><U>/guideonline/view=page.law?POLICYID=426&PARENT=424</U></B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <bR> <div> In Section<B> 18.01 </B>of the<B> Guide</B>, it gives the all encompassing definition of an “<B>undertaking.</B>” It states that <B>“an undertaking is any unequivocal declaration of intention addressed to someone who reasonably places reliance on it. . . .</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.lawsociety.org.uk/professional/conduct/guideonline/view=page</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>.law?POLICYID=425&PARENT=424</U></B></FONT>) And in Section <B>18.04, </B>it states, “<B>An undertaking is binding even if it is to do something outside the solicitor's control.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.lawsociety.org.uk/professional/conduct</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>/guideonline/view=page.law?POLICYID=428&PARENT=424</U></B></FONT>) Such as, promise that a client will do certain things. Again, these “<B>documents</B>” were to be sent to me “<B>shortly,” </B>not years later.</div> <bR> <div> I expect you to fulfill your obligated duty to me. The Law Society Guide says that “<B>there is an implied term that an undertaking is to be performed within a reasonable time having regard to its nature.</B>”<B> </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.lawsociety.org.uk/professional/conduct/guideonline/view=chapter.law?PARENT=424&POLICYID=424</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Again, not eight years later, but I am requiring that you fulfill your firm’s “<B>undertaking,</B>” because in the attempt you will prove your guilt. Remember you made a binding promise that your client will show that the Imperial family of Germany really did actually convey the title of Halberstadt as specified in the legal documents.</div> <bR> <div> Your delay in fulfilling the “<B>undertaking</B>” merely shows that you know that the whole deal was fraud pure and simple. At least every year I have requested you to do your duty. It seems that duty and obligation or misconduct means very little to you, which is inconsistent with the fact that you advertised for years on your website that your firm offered "<B>the highest standards of excellence and integrity.</B>" Where was that "<B>integrity</B>" when it came to me. I told you several times that failure to produce the promised "<B>documents</B>" that would prove that the Imperial and Royal House of Prussia were really/actually involved in the conveyance would be financially disastrous to me. And as a direct result, I had to declare bankruptcy because you wronged me. (The Law Society has copies of the letters I sent to you and Mr. Boada showing how I was relying on you) </div> <bR> <div> But the point is, any solicitor who is worth his salt—who is prudent and has integrity, honesty and probity, as required and expected in the teachings of the Law Society, would fulfill their word, and obey the law<B> </B>and prove themselves honorable. This is especially true when an <B>undertaking</B> is made. Note that “<B>Solicitors giving undertakings or certifying something to be the case, accept special responsibility to third parties who act in reliance on it.</B>”<B> </B>Allied Finance & Investments, Ltd. v. Haddon & Co (1983); Al-Kandari v JR Brown & Co (1987) I relied on your firm’s word. Perhaps you don’t recall that a solicitor’s <B>undertaking </B>“<B>is a personal legal guarantee by the solicitor that something will be done. . . .</B>”<B> </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.inzo.com/selling/jargon.php</U></B></FONT>) Will you keep your word like a man of honor or not? So far your word means nothing and if it means nothing, then I question whether you should be allow to practice any longer.</div> <bR> <div> In <B>Patel -vs- Daybells </B>(a firm) in the Court of Appeals of England and Wales, it stated that “<B>. . . English solicitors do almost invariably honour their undertakings. . . .” (</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.ipsofactoj.com/International</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>/2002/Part01/int2002(1)-007.htm</U></B></FONT><B>)</B> The reason why was given that “<B>solicitors</B>” <B>“invariably honour their undertakings . . . [because they are aware of] the possibility of rapid summary enforcement of a broken undertaking. . . .</B>” (Ibid.) Is it that you have no fear or very little respect for the rules of your profession that you have defied them and hurt me? Or, do you have something to hide---like you know that the whole deal was a scam? Therefore, you can’t prove “<B>good title.</B>”</div> <bR> <div> Based on your past behavior toward me, I told the Law Society that unless your feet are held to the fire, that is, unless you are forced to comply, you will not do your duty toward me or anyone else it appears. This looks really bad for you. It is not the kind of character the Law Society feels should represent law and justice. Honestly, it looks like unless they throw the book at you, you will not act in ways that are consistent with what a reasonable, honest and prudent legal professional would do. In other words, justice will never be accomplished unless you are forced to do your lawful duty. But then, will you be fair and just without someone looking over your shoulder? I’m afraid you are too set in your ways and those ways are crooked rather than straight. Generally, the best predictor of the future is the past, unless you use this as a wake up call and really mean business.</div> <bR> <div> Your firm’s “<B>undertaking</B>” is pretty clear cut and unmistakable in its meaning, but even a confusing “<B>undertaking</B>” is serious for the <B>Guide 18.07 </B>states, “<B>An ambiguous undertaking is generally construed in favour of the recipient.</B>” Remember an <B>undertaking</B> does not have to use the word <B>undertaking</B> in it to be an <B>undertaking. </B>The Law Society Guide <B>18.012</B> states that, “<B>An undertaking may be given orally or in writing and need not necessarily include the word ‘undertake</B>’.” </div> <bR> <div> Even thought the “<B>undertaking”</B> was actually given by Naffisa Sheikh, Esq. who worked for you, the Guide <B>18.11</B> makes it clear that, “<B>A solicitor employer is responsible for honouring an undertaking given by any member of staff, including unadmitted staff.</B>” And according to <B>18.01</B>, “<B>An undertaking is any unequivocal declaration of intention addressed to someone who reasonably places reliance on it and made by:</B><I><B> </B></I><B>(a) a solicitor or a member of a solicitor’s staff in the course of practice. . . ."</B></div> <bR> <div> My reliance can be easily demonstrated in the letters I wrote. Some examples follow.</div> <bR> <div> On <B>October 22, 2000, </B>I wrote<B> </B>that “<B>getting the evidence is truly an urgent issue, so much so that it is of utmost importance to me personally and financially</B>” and “<B>as an analogy, it’s like you have all the water (the proofs I need) that could put out the fire, so my house (a major investment in my life) will not burn down to the ground and leave me empty handed.</B>” On <B>October 11, 2000</B>, I wrote, “<B>. . . if I do not proceed with this business, I stand to lose literally thousands of dollars of lost revenue. I am getting dangerously close to the time that I will be unable to recover most of my business start-up expenses. . . .</B>” (The Law Society has copies of all these letters) There are more such statements wherein I made it eminently clear that I was in trouble and needed verifiable proof—the proof that was promised, proof I was relying on and needed. </div> <bR> <div> In <B>18.14 </B>of the Guide it states that “<B>A solicitor who gives an undertaking which is dependent upon the happening of a future event must notify the recipient immediately if it becomes clear that the event will not occur.” </B>This was never done. And it is important to note that in <B>(2) </B>of that<B> Section, </B>“<B>An undertaking will not be affected by events which occur subsequently, unless these events are provided for in the undertaking itself.</B>” No conditions or provisions were made in the undertaking. It was straightforward that the “<B>documents</B>” I “<B>requested</B>” that prove the Imperial family were involved, that is, that I would have “<B>good title</B>” to my property were “<B>being collected for photocopy” </B>and “<B>I reiterate that the requested information will be forthcoming at the very earliest date as promised by BFI.” </B></div> <bR> <div> In <B>18.09</B>, it clearly states,<B> “A solicitor will be held personally liable to honour an undertaking given 'on behalf of' anyone unless such liability is clearly disclaimed in the undertaking itself.”</B> Again, the “<B>undertaking</B>” did not disclaim anything or give any conditions, or any if or buts. It was plain and simple and unambiguous. </div> <bR> <div> Mr. Pitts-Tucker, you need to be honorable and fulfill your “<B>undertaking</B>” and act in ways becoming a person worthy to be called a solicitor. Remember, In <B>18.02(3</B>) of the<B> Guide</B>, it states that “<B>The OSS expects solicitors to honour undertakings for so long as their names remain on the roll and regardless of whether or not they hold practising certificates.</B>” </div> <bR> <div> Will you keep your word, “<B>your personal guarantee</B>” or not? It all boils down to the question of whether you are worthy to continue to be a solicitor or not. So far, you demonstrate unworthiness. Such a promise is so important that, <B>“It is his/her professional duty to honour such an undertaking, even though he may suffer financially as a result, if his clients default.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.strathclydehomes.com/glossary)</U></B></FONT> This is extremely important especially in its implications for your future and your career.</div> <bR> <div> <B>(2)</B> Before the “<B>undertaking</B>” was sent to me, I clearly and succinctly described what I needed. And all my letters to Mr. Boada were also sent to you. The following was written on <B>August 26, 2000</B>:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Said a tiger to a lion as they drank beside the pool, "Tell me, why do you roar like a fool?"</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"That’s not foolish," replied the lion with a twinkle in his eyes. "They call me king of all the beasts because I advertize."</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>A rabbit heard them talking and ran home like a streak. He thought he would try the lion’s plan, but his roar was just a squeak. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>A fox came to investigate—and had his lunch in the woods. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The moral: when you advertize, be sure you’ve got the goods! Considering the gravity of this situation, I am making the following two reasonable and appropriate requests.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>(1) Since you advertize on the Web and in your book that your "titles are 100% insured with title indemnity insurance from a leading British insurer," and "the titles sold by this firm [BFI, Ltd.] are all pre-approved by this insurance company," and "all titles obtained through our firm [BFI, Ltd.] have this added protection and security for the buyer," please send to Pitts-Tucker the name, address and phone number of the insurance company that provides this important assurance.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>(2) Please provide the contact information for the member or members of the Imperial Hohenzollern family, who regularly approve the conveyance of the Germanic titles, so my title can be confirmed as approved and established on solid ground as believable and valid.</B></div> <div> <B>Please send this critically important information to Naffisa at Pitts-Tucker. The sooner, of course, the better. </B>(The Law Society has a copy of this letter)</div> <bR> <div> On <B>September 10, 2000</B>, I wrote: </div> <bR> <div> <B>The only missing link to authentification is the proof that the Imperial Hohenzollern family have actually permitted this title to be transferred in this manner and have accepted payment for that express purpose as the final seal of their acceptance and approval. </B></div> <div> <B>To receive this irrefutable evidence would mean that my claim is solid and defendable. Otherwise, the title remains on shaky ground and could be classified as a legalized illusion or falsehood, wholly unsupportable. </B>(The Law Society has a copy of this letter)</div> <bR> <div> On <B>September 18, 2000</B>, I wrote: </div> <div> <B>. . . sooner or later every foundation is exposed for what it really is. I need to [know] what kind of foundation my Germantic title is built on. Without this knowledge, I can’t move forward or backward. I am at a complete stand still in this one thing.</B> (The Law Society has a copy of this letter)</div> <bR> <div> Mr. Boada wrote back on <B>September 20, 2000 </B>and stated that my request was one of the truly <B>legitimate inquiries</B>" he had received, so he acknowledge that I was asking for something proper. But he wrote, not to worry, because: </div> <bR> <div> <B>In Britain, solicitors of the stature of Pitts-Tucker & Co. would never become involved with any kind of company or individuals who are not absolutely above board. Thus the very fact that we do business with them is to us an honor and tribute. </B>(The Law Society has a copy of this letter)</div> <bR> <div> On <B>September 20, 2000</B>, I repeat numbers <B>(1) </B>and <B>(2) </B>from my <B>August 26, 2000 </B>letter and wrote: </div> <div> <B>This is all I want and need to prove I have a foundation to stand on. . . . You probably have no idea how much I want and need this evidence and proof as it will enable me to finally move forward without getting clobbered under public scrutiny</B>. (The Law Society has a copy of this letter)</div> <bR> <div> The next day on <B>September 21, 2000</B>, Mr. Boada wrote, "<B>I do understood perfectly well the evidence you want and will assist in every possible [way] within my power to enhance your standing and avoid getting ‘clobbered’ under public scrutiny.</B>" (The Law Society has a copy of this letter) In this letter, he gave the excuse that the Imperial family were very old and really liked their privacy and he would see if they would allow him to give out their information or not.</div> <bR> <div> On <B>September 26, 2000</B>, I sent him several ways, several alternatives, to send me proof without compromising their confidential information. And I wrote:<B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>There must be a large number of possible ways to provide impressive evidence (documents) to prove that my title is not a legalized fantasy or falsehood. As long as each of these documents can be verified and confirmed individually as authentic, they can stand strong in support of the truth. And some of these things you, no doubt, have in your possession right now—please send them to me. </B>(The Law Society has a copy of this letter)</div> <bR> <div> On <B>September 28, 2000</B>, BFI wrote, "<B>Please know that I am compiling the documentation you require and that we will be sending it to you at the earliest possible.</B>" (The Law Society has a copy of this letter) Then on <B>September 29, 2000</B>, I received the official “<B>undertaking”</B> by Naffisa Sheikh as a "<B>lawyer</B>" for and behalf of "<B>British Feudal Investments, Ltd.</B>" The exact words were:</div> <bR> <div> <B>The copies of the documents you have requested of Antony, Baron Chafford are being collected for photocopy and will be sent to you shortly by BFI. I wanted to write to you and let you know that your request is being dealt with and not ignored and that you should be receiving the documents in question shortly. I can as their lawyer, inform you they have been recently inundated with requests and Lord Chafford has had to be present in his Diplomatic capacity as Ambassador, at a number of conferences in Jamaica recently. This has unfortunately slowed matters somewhat but I reiterate that the requested information will be forthcoming at the very earliest date as promised by BFI.</B> (The Law Society has a copy of this letter)</div> <bR> <div> <B>(3)</B> I was amazed that after how clear I made everything and had received such a legally binding and obligatory promise, as the above, that you would write to me on <B>March 7, 2001</B> that, <B>". . . all matters have been carried out in the proper manner." </B>(The Law Society has a copy of this letter) Or, with all my requests for verifiable proof, how could you write on <B>April 27, 2001</B> that your<B> </B>client had<B> “on numerous occasions tried to satisfy your demands. . . ,” </B>even <B>“every demand.” </B>(The Law Society has a copy of this letter) None of my demands were fulfilled. In <B>Rondel v Worsley (1966)</B>, Lord Denning explained that a solicitor “<B>must not consciously misstate the facts.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_practice/PP%20-%20C.ppt</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>#274,47,Court Relationships</U></B></FONT>) That is just common sense, anyone knows that a solicitor is not supposed to lie or perpetrate deception. Yet you were so far off the mark. Then after all your failures to obey the laws that protect buyers, that is, after all your failures to do what is right and lawful, you cried “<B>caveat emptor</B>” when you, not I, were at fault. (The Law Society has copies of your letters) </div> <bR> <div> In retrospect it is kind of amazing that Mr. Boada once wrote to me the he had supplied me with “<B>a mountain of evidence</B>” that the title was legitimately from the Imperial family as claimed, when, in fact, he didn’t even provide a scrap of proof that any of it was legit. (<B>May 2003</B>: The Law Society has a copy of this letter) And what he did give me, the <B>November 2000 Statutory Declaration</B>, confirmed that not only was there something “<B>rotten in Denmark</B>” as the saying goes, but that fraud had occurred. And if he sent me “<B>a mountain of evidence,</B>” where is it? There is no mountain, there’s not even one document that proved anything was genuine or authentic. If there was a mountain of anything, it is evidence of fraud.</div> <bR> <div> Mr. Boada is well-known to be “<B>a liar and a fantasist,</B>” which was the astute comment of Guy Stair Sainty in <B>April of 1997</B>. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://search.miaminewtimes.com/1997-08-07/news/letters/full</U></B></FONT>) He is a world renowned expert in nobility and royalty, who edited the masterpiece book by Burke’s Peerage and Gentry entitled: <I><B>World Orders of Knighthood and Merit</B></I><B>.</B> Unfortunately I found this out too late. But I know personally that Mr. Boada, the con artist, sold feudal titles of nobility without ever proving “<B>good title,</B>” because you told him he didn’t have to. As mentioned before, 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 letter)</div> <bR> <div> After writing the above, it is no surprise that Mr. Boada left him with <B>bad title</B> or a title so defective that he had no real ownership for what he bought. Mr. Boada left him as well as myself empty handed. Why, because you failed to do your duty and either gave Mr. Boada bad or unsound advice or were in on the take and the mastermind of the whole ugly scheme. Mr. Boada also sold an Irish feudal title to J.C. (name redacted) and never gave him “<B>good title</B>” either. J.C. later found out that not only were all feudal baronies abolished by the 1662 Irish Parliament signed into law by the King, but he discovered from the Assistant Chief Herald of Ireland that this particular feudal title never existed at any time in all the history of Ireland. No wonder, Mr. Boada did not want to prove “<B>good title</B>,” because he couldn’t sell any titles otherwise---all his titles were probably fake or counterfeit. This is serious because you made all of this possible by your bad advice. In my original compliant to the Law Society, I wrote:</div> <bR> <div> <B>If he cannot do this [prove my title actually came from the Imperial Hohenzollern family], 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> I believe you will soon provide “<B>probable cause</B>” that you are guilty of aiding and abetting fraud by your inability to prove “<B>good title.</B>”<B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>(4)</B> There is weighty and impressive evidence that the so-called <B>Peter Michael Hohenzollern- Saxe- Weimer- Civitella- Cessi- Lambrino </B>in your client’s<B> November 2000 Statutory Declaration </B>is a non-existent person---a person who never existed and whose very name was proof enough that it was bogus and nonsense, as confirmed by experts, including Guy Stair Sainty, an internationally recognized expert, and every noble and royal house in this phony name. That is, the Hohenzollerns, the Saxe-Weimers, the Lambrinos and the Torionia family who once were sovereign princes over the territory of Civitella-Cesi all stated that they never heard of this man and some that they did not believe he was real. If he was related to them, they would have known him. And if this was a real name, how come he used “<B>Civitella-Cessi</B>" in it? Any family member would know that no member of the family however distant ever uses this territorial name. They go by Torionia. And Civitella-Cessi is spelled wrong. A real member of the Torionia family would not have misspelled or used this name. It is virtually impossible that this name Peter Michael Hohenzollern, etc., etc. could have been a real person instead of make believe. Further evidence of its impossibility is given on the website: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.phoneynobletitles.com</U></B></FONT> on the web page entitled “<B>Proof of Fraud.</B>” </div> <bR> <div> Now here is what is incriminating: I gave you this information in early <B>2001</B> including the contact information so you could confirm the facts for yourself, but to your great discredit, you did not do so, which is just another act of misconduct on your part. “<B>Due diligence</B>” demanded better of you. But you performed in a substandard way and thereby further perpetuated Mr. Boada’s scams.</div> <bR> <div> There is little doubt that this fabricated name or person will ever materialize anywhere on earth---especially at the upcoming hearing against you. He doesn’t exist. He is make-believe created for the malicious purpose to deceive and protect wrong doing. If he did exist, you would have produced him to prove you were honorable men instead of guilty people who had a terrible black-hearted crime to hide. Neither you nor Mr. Boada can prove anything you did in regard to these titles was above board.</div> <bR> <div> <B>(5)</B> Shouldn’t a prudent solicitor, with 30 years of experience, know that it is against the law for a corporation or limited company to operate in England unless they are legally registered? Yet to my amazement, you wrote to Mr. Brancum on <B>August 17, 2001:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>It is disputed that the non-registration as companies of British Feudal Investments Limited, the Hohenzollern Family land Trust Inc and / or Trade Consult Group Ltd is against the law. As your client is alleging so, please identify to which legislation you refer and kindly supply us with a copy. Our client's inform us they are duly registered, contrary to Mr Goff's allegations.</B> (The Law Society has a copy of this letter)</div> <bR> <div> What kind of solicitor would be so ignorant to condone or defend his client’s right to break the law? In doing so, you are certainly not an example of the best and certainly not anywhere close to offering “<B>the highest standard of excellence and integrity</B>” as your website used to boast. Aren’t you supposed to uphold the law or is your role to encourage lawlessness? Note the following:</div> <bR> <div> <B>The United Kingdom has enjoyed a system of company registration since 1844. Today, company registration matters are dealt with in law, by the Companies Act 1985 and the updating legislation contained in the Companies Act 1989.</B> <B>All limited companies in the UK are registered at Companies House, an Executive Agency of the Department of Trade and Industry. </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/functionsHistory.shtml</U></B></FONT>) </div> <bR> <div> That is, “<B>all limited companies in the UK are registered at Companies House</B>” except your client’s companies. I have contacted Companies House many times. None of Mr. Boada’s companies were ever legally registered to do business in England. Companies House web address is <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.companieshouse.gov.uk/index.shtml.</U></B></FONT> Their land address is Companies House Executive Agency, 21 Bloomsbury Street, London WC1B 3XD. <B>You can get in touch with Companies House at 0870 33 33 636, Minicom - 02920 381245</B> or by email at <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>enquiries@companies-house.gov.uk</U></B></FONT>. They offer an instant online way to check out the registration of a company. </div> <bR> <div> Dr. McInnis states, "<B>An admitted solicitor is an officer of the Court [and] . . . has a duty to obey the law.</B>"<B> </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_practice/PP%20-%20Handout%20C.ppt</U></B></FONT>) You flagrant disregard or lack of respect for the law is frightening and unbecoming a solicitor of England. </div> <bR> <div> <B>(6) </B>I was astonished to realize that to defend yourself in your <B>March 14, 2003</B> letter to the Law Society, you undermined your client’s entire legal foundation or basis for his whole operation. You wrote:</div> <bR> <div> <B>You should appreciate that the sale of [a] feudal title is essentially the sale of a name or “vanity title”. It does not comprise land or anything approaching a legal interest in land. This is in contradistinction to Section 205 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which does allow the feudal title of the “Lord of the Manor” to be considered land for purposes of registration at HM Land Registry in England</B>.</div> <bR> <div> Well, if this is true, how could you support a client who sold merely a “<B>name,</B>” like a feudal baronies, etc. under the <B>Law of Property Act</B>, if that was all a lie and absolutely wrong or twisted? Is this ethical or moral for you to aid and abet deceit? Or were you to uphold the law and what is right under the law? If you were supporting Mr. Boada in merely selling names as though they were real and authentic feudal titles of nobility, under the <B>Law of Property Act, </B>how can you be trusted to be honest about anything else that really matters? In fact, if you knew that all Mr. Boada was selling was merely a “<B>name</B>” under the guise or ploy that it was a real feudal title, then you are knowingly and willfully supporting a crime. You “<B>knew or ought to have known</B>” what to do. Instead of aiding and abetting fraud, you had a duty to expose the fraud. Note the following:</div> <bR> <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><U>(</U><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" ><U>)</U></FONT></div> <bR> <div> With your understanding of things as specified in your answer to the Law Society, you were supporting a falsehood. Because you, as a legal expert, say the titles were merely names and did not fit under the <B>Law of Property Act </B>and were not property. Yet your client was saying something completely different in his official documents---the <B>Deeds</B> and <B>Statutory Declarations</B> and on his website. The following was published on Mr. Boada’s BFI, Ltd.’s website under the subtitle, “<B>Frequently Asked Questions</B>:”</div> <bR> <div> <B><U>Are these titles genuine?</U></B><B> Yes, feudal titles are considered ‘incorporeal hereditaments’ or intangible property under the Law of Property Act 1922-1925 of the United Kingdom. They are titles that once went with tenure or ownership of land in medieval times. We do not sell disguised legal name changes, nor a square foot of land in the form of a ‘souvenir plot’ in order to put your name on a deed with a title included in it nor do we sell copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc. We sell the actual property required by the law to grant the rank and legal status of nobility.</B> (The Law Society has a copy of Mr. Boada’s old website)</div> <bR> <div> Note: the titles are declared to be "<B>genuine</B>" and not just a "<B>name,</B>" but are "‘<B>incorporeal hereditaments’ or intangible property</B> <B>under the Law of Property Act 1922-1925.</B>"</div> <bR> <div> Now, why did you declare the opposite to the above to the Law Society? I believe it was to make a feeble attempt to say you should not be required to prove “<B>good title,” </B>because the<B> Law of Property </B>was not involved<B>, </B>but in doing so, you showed another form of misconduct. That is, you told the Law Society that you believe your client is doing things all wrong, is involved in deceit or perpetuating a lie, yet at the same time you were defending and promoting his business as thought it were an honest one. This makes you the villain for you supported deception or a misrepresentation of the truth. The con was that the titles were present and sold as real, feudal and under property law, when they were really they were just names and property law was being inappropriately applied.</div> <bR> <div> Hence, if you believed Boada’s titles were merely names instead of genuine and authentic feudal titles of nobility that of necessity must be sold under the Law of Property, then you were promoting a farce.</div> <div> Assuming that you expressed your true feelings and thoughts to the Law Society as it would be imbecilic to lie to them, how is it you could say to a Dr. (name redacted) something completely opposite and contradictory? You told him in a letter on <B>July 5, 2002</B> that “<B>the transfer of the Feudal County of Clissa and the Feudal Country of Nona was drawn in accordance with English law and that therefore you have the right to the named as the owner of the legal estate in these feudal titles.</B>” (The Law Society has a copy of this letter) </div> <bR> <div> Remember, you told the Law Society that feudal titles do “<B>. . .</B> <B>not comprise land or anything approaching a legal interest in land. This is in contradistinction to Section 205 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which does allow the feudal title of the “Lord of the Manor” to be considered land for purposes of registration at HM Land Registry in England</B>. (Quoted above) Yet you said to Dr. (name redacted) that it did, in fact, include the ownership of property (feudal property). Well, it is gratifying that you came this close to spilling the beans or letting the cat out of the bag. No wonder, you have been afraid of me and the idea of proving "<B>good title.</B>" You knew it was all bogus. You really should fully fess up. But your hidden confession that Mr. Boada’s titles are just “<B>names</B>” and therefore he was selling falsehoods misrepresented as genuine is herein noted.</div> <div> As stated a number of times, when I first made my official complaint to the Law Society of England and Wales about you, I wrote under the subtitle “<B>What would satisfy the complaint</B>” and stated:</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> For five or six years now since I first made this complaint against you, you have shown that you would rather put your whole career and professional life, your business and future earnings, your vast fortune, money and investments, your good name and reputation, a possible prison sentence, heavy fines and endure the shame of it all, which is sure to come, rather than fulfill your “<B>undertaking,</B>” that is, prove a real conveyance took place and that the title was real and genuine. Why? Why would any man not just show to the world he was honest? Any man is his right mind would? But there is no way you can prove a fake title is anything but fake. Hence, on this alone, there is enough “<B>probable cause</B>” for an investigation to be started as will be shown. </div> <bR> <div> In the <B>Guide</B> on the “<B>‘Green Card’ warning on property fraud</B>,” it states, “<B>The general assumption is that if there has been a property fraud [such as the sale of fake titles] a solicitor must have been involved.</B>” In this case, it is definitely you---there was no other solicitor involved in this conveyancing company. Over the years, it has become evident that you will do anything, ruin or jeopardize your own business, lie, distract, change the subject, present lame excuses, beat around the bush, attack me, anything, but address the core issue of proof that you were an honest man and ran a business that was above board. </div> <bR> <div> If I were you I would prove “<B>good title,</B>” but you and I both know that you can’t, so you are left with lame excuses that only further establish your guilt. Lack of “<B>good title</B>” is your <B>Achilles’ Heel </B>and you seem to avoid this at every turn.<B> </B>But it is there to bite you if you fail in this one thing.<B> </B>You live or die on it. But you only have one choice, pay out huge amounts of money to professionals defenders who have very little to defend you with. That of course is my opinion, but there is much more than could be presented.</div> <bR> <div> I very much look forward to the hearing. I probably won't be there thanks to you. I can't afford it. But if you can't prove "<B>good title,</B>" you prove bad title and all that goes with it. </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="id65.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor6"><U><B>Previous Page</B></U></A><B> /</B><A HREF="irish_and_english_baronies.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Selling the Forbidden"><U><B> </B></U></A><A HREF="id66.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor8"><U><B>Next Page</B></U></A></div> </td> </tr></table></body>