Crooked Solicitor10

<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>   |   <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>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor10</B>   |   <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 Solicitor10</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>   |   <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>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor10</B>   |   <A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor11"><U>Crooked Solicitor11</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id71.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor12"><U>Crooked Solicitor12</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id72.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor13"><U>Crooked Solicitor13</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id73.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor14"><U>Crooked Solicitor14</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id74.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor15"><U>Crooked Solicitor15</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id75.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor16"><U>Crooked Solicitor16</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id76.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor 17"><U>Crooked Solicitor 17</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id77.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor18"><U>Crooked Solicitor18</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id78.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor19"><U>Crooked Solicitor19</U></A>   |   <A HREF="irish_and_english_baronies.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Selling the Forbidden"><U>Selling the Forbidden</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada___roger_pitts_tucker24.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Challenge"><U>The Challenge</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id60.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Declaration of Ownership"><U>Declaration of Ownership</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id57.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Diversion Tactics"><U>Diversion Tactics</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id42.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Reactions"><U>Reactions</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id33.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Disclaimer"><U>Disclaimer</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id23.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact "><U>Contact </U></A>   |   <A HREF="id44.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Index"><U>Index</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <B>If you have been victimize by any of these despicable men, Antonio A. Boada, Mark T. Williams or Roger Pitts-Tucker, go to "</B><A HREF="id58.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Answer"><U><B>The Answer</B></U></A><B>" and learn how you can join in a class action suit against them.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>*************************************</B></div> <div> <B>Important Letter</B></div> <bR> <div> January 26, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Dear Mr. Pitts-Tucker,</div> <bR> <div> This will be the last letter for awhile, because you are not responding. The message you are sending to me is loud and clear. You obviously do not want to right your wrongs or have anything to do with me despite the fact that you owe me a “<B>duty of care</B>”<B> </B>because of your firm's “<B>undertaking.</B>” If you had done your duty, you would not need to be preparing for a hearing against you by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.</div> <bR> <div> May I remind you of how weak your defense is. It is so weak, that any reasonable person could see through it.</div> <bR> <div> Where there is a scam, there are deceptions and unless one is extremely careful, there will also be contradictions. This is the “<B>smoking gun.</B>” And, “<B>where there is smoke, there is fire.</B>” Multiple contradictions amply demonstrate “<B>probable cause</B>” of fraud and your complicity in their commission. And there are contradictions all over the place. But the biggest blunder is, you all but confessed that you knew about the scam from the very beginning in your<B> March and September 2003 </B>letters to the Law Society.</div> <bR> <div> To begin with, contrary to your client's website and your own firm's letter to Dr. (name removed), you told the Law Society that the feudal titles were only “<B>name[s]</B>” and like “<B>copyrights</B>” which were sold as “<B>personal or moveable property</B>” rather than as “<B>incorporeal hereditaments</B>” under the <B>law of real property</B>. You even declared that this was how it was done by both yourself and Mr. Boada's former solicitors. So there you have it---the confession---<B>the smoking gun!</B>”---and a huge contradiction. But the point is, you revealed that you “<B>knowingly and willfully</B>” sanctioned and defended, rather than stopped your client in selling falsehoods. He told everyone that the titles were genuine and sold under the <B>Law of Property. </B>In fact,<B> </B>every <B>Deed of Transfer</B> and <B>Statutory Declaration</B> that you signed you could not have known that they were being sold via the <B>law of real property</B>, because deeds are legally a part of land conveyancing. It is defined as “<B>A written document for the transfer of land or other real property from one person to another.” </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d020.htm" </U></B><B><U>http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d020.htm</U></B></FONT>) </div> <bR> <div> One of your feeble excuses was: “<B>Feudal titles are sold in many ways</B>” was given in your <B>March 14, 2003</B> letter to the Law Society. Obviously, you attempted to justify the idea that feudal titles need not be sold via the <B>Law of Property</B>, which would make you obligated to prove “<B>good title.</B>” But everything points to the idea that the titles were sold via the <B>law of real property</B>. Obviously, there is a contradiction here between what you said and what your firm and client have said..</div> <bR> <div> You haven't proved “<B>good title</B>” in any of Mr. Boada's conveyances as far as I know. No wonder you have a vested interest in the idea that the <B>law of real property</B> was <B><U>not</U></B> part of the deal. You did not want to be found guilty of misconduct. But you committed one of the worst ones a man could commit, because the lack of “<B>good title</B>” caused perhaps hundreds of people to be robbed of the right to own the incorporeal property they bought. </div> <bR> <div> One answer as to why you failed was in your letters to the Law Society in 2003, wherein you unwittingly admitted that you knew all along that what your client was doing was a lie. Yet you continued to be involved in conveying what were called “<B>incorporeal hereditaments”</B> via the <B>law of real property</B>. If the “<B>feudal titles</B>” were merely “<B>name[s]</B>” or “<B>personal and movable property</B>” to sell them as though they were “<B>incorporeal hereditaments</B>” is not only an act of misrepresenting reality, but an act of fraud and criminal deception. The point is, you knew this all along according to your admission in your letters. A solicitor is not supposed to deceive or allow his client to perpetuate deception.</div> <bR> <div> You stated:</div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . 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 contradiction to Section 205 of the Law of Property 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>”<B> </B></div> <bR> <div> You wrote this along with other meager excuses in the hope that you would avoid responsibility for your wrongful acts. </div> <bR> <div> However, contrary to your contemptible excuse, “<B>Section 205</B> <B>of the Law of Property 1925</B>” actual declares that “<B>Land</B>” includes or comprises <B>“. . . a manor, advowson, and a rent and other incorporeal hereditaments. . . .</B>” In fact, "<B>'hereditament' means any real property. . . .</B>” whether it is corporeal or incorporeal. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.number7.demon.co.uk/acts/trusts/land/other/LPA25/s205.htm</U></B></FONT>) In other words, an “<B>incorporeal hereditament</B>” is, by law, land for all practical purposes. “<B>Examples of incorporeal hereditaments are: heritable titles of honor or dignity, heritable titles of office, tithes, advowsons, pensions, annuities, rents, franchises, etc. The term is still used in the phrase "lands, tenements and hereditaments" to describe property in land, as distinguished from goods and chattels or movable property.</B>” (from the <I>from the</I> <I>Encyclopædia Britannica</I>, Eleventh Edition:<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" > <B><U>www.answers.com/topic</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>/hereditament</U></B></FONT>) In other words, an “<B>incorporeal hereditament”</B> is not “<B>personal or moveable property</B>” as you have wrongfully declared in your <B>September 29, 2003</B> letter to the Law Society. It is, by law, an important part of real property.</div> <bR> <div> In the book <I>Commentaries on the Laws of England,</I> (1915) by William Blackstone and William Carey Jones, it states that the idea that an “<B>incorporeal hereditament</B>” is basically land is from “<B>great antiquity and authority</B>” and that “<B>a freehold estate</B>” and “<B>an incorporeal hereditament,</B>” are of “<B>the same nature</B>” as real property even though an “<B>incorporeal hereditament</B>” is a “<B>'creature of the mind,' or rather the law.</B>” (p. 732: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://books.google.com/books?id=mCc0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA732&lpg=PA732&dq=feudal</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <B><U>+%22incorporeal</U></B><B><U>+hereditament%22&source=web&ots=1FnPFkpbTy&sig</U></B></div> <div> <B><U>=YxNJwNtGbTN62xG86KubtWmEV2U#PPA732,M1"</U></B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >)</FONT></div> <bR> <div> And it is important to note that a real “<B>feudal title</B>” is not just a “<B>name,</B>” a “<B>vanity</B>” or “<B>purely honorific,</B>” nor is it “<B>personal or moveable property</B>” or similar to a “<B>copyright.</B>” What it really is, is a “<B>dignity</B>” or title of honor. And a “<B>dignity</B>” is “<B>a title of honour, which is in law an incorporeal hereditament.</B>” (<I>A Concise Law Dictionary: For Students and Practitioners</I>, by P. G. Osborn, 2007, p. 90) (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://books.google.com/books?id=DVH9X5ZUivAC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=law+of</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <B><U>+property+act+1924+%22incorporeal+hereditament%22&source=web&ots=9CyonYQ-8Q&sig=KG2qEf1nGUP7</U></B><B><U>vpw0gYrEmwqJCb0#PPA7,M1"</U></B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >)</FONT></div> <bR> <div> And an <B>incorporeal hereditament</B> is, again, by law a form of land. In all of these things you have revealed great legal ignorance, which is inexcusable for a solicitor who has practiced law for over three decades and proclaims himself to be an expert in the “<B>sale and purchase of all types of property (residential, commercial and industrial)</B> as well as 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>)</div> <bR> <div> In <I>Duhaime's Online Legal Dictionary</I> it defines an “<B>incorporeal hereditament</B>” as, “<B>An incorporeal right which is attached to property and which is inheritable. Easements and are examples of incorporeal hereditaments as are hereditary [feudal] titles such as those common in the placecountry-regionUnited Kingdom.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-i.aspx</U></B></FONT>)<B> </B>Sir William Blackstone declared, <B>“`land' is `a word of very extensive signification' [or definition].</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.landvaluescape.org/papers/blueprint_smarttax_britain.pdf)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.landvaluescape.org/papers/blu"><U><B><U>www.landvaluescape</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.landvaluescape.org/papers/blueprint_smarttax_britain.pdf)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.landvaluescape.org/papers/blu"><U><B><U>.org/papers/blueprint_smarttax_britain.pdf</U></B></U></A>) </FONT>It is very inclusive. “<B>As an incorporeal hereditament, it is subject to the general rules which govern the enjoyment of real property, </B><B> <A NAME="p3c2d121"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B><B>{Page 3 Cal.2d 121} and to the law of descent, devolution and transfer by act of law, according to the freehold or chattel interest acquired in it. . . .</B>" (Smith v. Cooley, 65 StateplaceCal. 46) (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C2/3C2d110</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>.htm" </U></B><B><U>http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C2/3C2d110.htm</U></B></FONT>) Feudal titles or <B>incorporeal hereditaments</B>, are “<B>sold in the same way as real land - which is to say by conveyance.” (</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.baronage.co.uk</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <B><U>/2006a/Manorial-SD.pdf</U></B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>) </B></FONT><B><U>('http://www.kevinboone.com/thetitlesgame.html'</U></B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <div> As already described, your firm confirmed all the above. They clearly stated that Mr. Boada uses the “<B>Law of Property Acts 1922-1925”</B> to convey “<B>feudal titles</B>” or “<B>incorporeal hereditaments</B>”<B> </B>in your firm's <B>December 11, 2000</B> letter to Dr Dunsford-Mac a'Phearsoin. Your firm wrote that Mr. Boada's feudal titles are not “<B>copyrights</B>,” “<B>trademarks</B>,” or “<B>Deed Poll</B>” name changes, but real, authentic, genuine titles. And the, “<B>The law of real property applies to incorporeal hereditaments in that they can only be conveyed by deed.</B> Plus, “<B>The company [BFI] sells the actual title itself [not just a “name”] and the sale is made by way of a Deed of Transfer or Conveyance, which is the legal method of effecting such a sale.</B>” (Ibid.) </div> <bR> <div> Your firm made it clear that a feudal title was not just a “<B>name,</B>” but something connected to land as any other “<B>incorporeal hereditament.</B>” They wrote:</div> <bR> <div> <B>A feudal title may have very real and valuable appurtenant rights, such as mineral rights, or the right to levy a charge for access to common land, or rights of franchise to hold a market or fair, or very rarely, a right displacing a Crown prerogative right to wreck. None of these rights of course apply when buying merely a 'name', copyright or trademark. Reference may be made to the Law of Property Acts 1922 - 1925.</B></div> <bR> <div> Mr. Boada confirmed this. He published the following on his website page entitled, <B>“Frequently Asked Questions</B>”-under the specific question: “<B>Are these titles genuine?</B>” meaning all the titles he sold. The answer was, “<B>Yes, feudal titles are considered `incorporeal hereditaments' or intangible property under the Law of Property Act 1922-1925 of the placecountry-regionUnited Kingdom.</B>” He continued:</div> <bR> <div> <B>We do not sell disguised legal name changes [as you have declared], 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></div> <bR> <div> Earlier on the webpage entitled, “<B>Purchase Documents and Guarentees</B>,” Mr. Boada declared:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Feudal titles of nobility are in law considered `incorporeal hereditaments' or intangible property and as such come under the law of property in most countries like the United Kingdom, Ireland and others. . . . Feudal titles are conveyed or transferred from the seller to the buyer by way of a Deed of Conveyance. . . . All such conveyances are done by our specialised, fully licensed attorneys [which in a later chapter was identified as “R. A. PittsTucker”---in other words you].</B></div> <bR> <div> My <B>Deed of Transfer</B> states that the <B>Principality of Halberstadt</B> is a “<B>feudal title</B>” with “<B>Rights, Privileges, Honours, and Emoluments (if any),</B>” and it is a “<B>hereditament.</B>” If it was only “<B>personal and movable property,</B>” it would be nothing but a “<B>name.</B>” But my <B>March and June 2000 Statutory Declarations</B> declare that the Principality is “<B>feudal,</B>” “<B>feudal property,</B>” and “<B>incorporeal property.</B>” </div> <bR> <div> In a letter to a Karl T. Ashley, who inquired about a German feudal title, dated <B>September 18, 2002</B>, Mr. Boada declared if he bought such, he would be given a <B>Deed of Transfer</B> and a <B>Statutory Declaration</B> confirming his purchase and “<B>All of these documents would be in full legal conformity with the British Law of Property Act 1922-1925 and the Conveyancing Act of 1881.</B>”<B> </B> </div> <bR> <div> There is no way you could not have known that your client was selling people on the idea that his <B>feudal titles</B> were being sold via <B>the law of real property</B>. Everything adds up to that. It is extremely clear and obvious like the nose on your face. Even your confession, wherein you spilled the beans, was a reaction to the idea that everyone knew that real, true “<B>feudal titles</B>” were supposed to have been conveyed by the <B>Law of Property. </B>Therefore, you “<B>knew or ought to have known</B>” this, but knowing this, you should have turned him in. You could have called the <B>Law Society Fraud Intelligence Unit</B> at 01926 439662. There was the <B>Law Society's Practice Advice Service</B>, you could have called. Their phone number is 0870 606 2522. In many situations, the law requires you to make an official disclosure to such organizations as <B>The National Criminal Intelligence Service</B> at:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Spring Gardens </B></div> <div> <B>Vauxhall </B></div> <div> <B>placeCityLondon SE11 5EF </B></div> <div> <B>Tel 020 7238 8282 </B></div> <div> <B>Fax 020 7238 8286 </B></div> <bR> <div> Or, <B>The Joint Money Laundering Steering Group</B> at:</div> <div>  </div> <div> <B>Pinners Hall </B></div> <div> <B>105 - addressStreet108 Old Broad Street </B></div> <div> <B>placeCityLondon, PostalCodeEC2N 1EX </B></div> <div> <B>Tel: 020 7216 8800 </B></div> <div> <B>Fax 020 7216 8811 </B></div> <bR> <div> Confidential advice could have been obtained from: </div> <bR> <div> <B>The Professional Adviser </B></div> <div> <B>Professional Ethics </B></div> <div> <B>Solicitors Regulation Authority </B></div> <div> <B>addressStreetIpsley Court </B></div> <div> <B>Berrington Close </B></div> <div> <B>placeCityRedditch, PostalCodeB98 OTD </B></div> <div> <B>DX 19114 placeRedditch </B></div> <div> <B>Tel: 0870 6062577 </B></div> <div> <B>Fax: 0207 320 5897</B></div> <bR> <div> You could have gotten help from the Law Society's website: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.sra.org.uk</U></B></FONT>, or called the <B>Ethics Helpline</B>: 0870 606 2577. </div> <bR> <div> Yet you did none of these things, as far as I know, and therefore you are left without excuse, because if you had checked out what I sent you and disclosed your suspicions of fraud to the authorities, you would not ever have been brought up for professional misconduct.  </div> <bR> <div> But because you knew your client was supposed to be conveying <B>feudal property</B> by the <B>law of real property</B> and yet you stayed with him in spite of knowing full well he was involved in selling falsehoods, you are, therefore, stuck with the responsibility for all the illegal conveyancing he did (you were, in fact, the only one involved with British Feudal Investments, Ltd. who was legally authorized to convey real property on a commercial basis), which then means you were required to either stop working with him, report him or provide “<B>good title</B>” according to that law. In the <B>National Conveyancing Protocol</B>, prepared by the Law Society of England and placecountry-regionWales, the <B>seller's solicitor </B>is to, “<B>prepare an epitome of title</B>” if the property or title is unregistered. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:C1epfNbDkMwJ:www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/downloads/Conveyancing%2520protocol.pdf+National+conveyancing+protocol&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:C1ep"><U><B><U>http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:C1epfNbDkMwJ:www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:C1epfNbDkMwJ:www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/downloads/Conveyancing%2520protocol.pdf+National+conveyancing+protocol&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:C1ep"><U><B><U>/downloads</U></B></U></A><A HREF="http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:C1epfNbDkMwJ:www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/downloads/Conveyancing%2520protocol.pdf+National+conveyancing+protocol&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:C1ep"><U><B><U>/Conveyancing%2520protocol.pdf+National+conveyancing+protocol&hl=en&gl</U></B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:C1epfNbDkMwJ:www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/downloads/Conveyancing%2520protocol.pdf+National+conveyancing+protocol&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:C1ep"><U><B><U>=us&ct=clnk&cd=1</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <div> Robert Smith of the Manorial Society of Great Britain, who has been involved with the law in regard to his practice and has learned the hard way what is right, wrote feudal titles should be conveyed “<B>as if they were real property with epitome of title: i.e. proof (a) that there is a property know as the `Lordship of Wherever' [and] (b) proof that the person conveying (selling) is the legal owner.</B>” (See “<B>Investigator's Report</B>” or <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.noblescams.com/boada/boada14.htm</U></B></FONT>) </div> <bR> <div>  Again, “<B>Every vendor </B><B><U>must</U></B><B> necessarily be bound to </B><B><U>furnish</U></B><B> the purchaser with the means of asserting his titles and defending his possession.</B>” Theodore B. F. Ruoff, “The Protection of the Purchaser of Land under English Law,” <I>Modern Law Review</I>, Vol 32, No. 2, March 1969, p. 132. The longstanding requirement is that the evidence of validity “<B><U>must</U></B><B> be handed to the purchaser.</B>” (Ibid.) In <B>Privy Council Appeal No. 36 of 2001</B>, the Lords decided that providing proof of ownership is an "<B>obligation imposed by law on the vendor</B>." That is, it is "<B>the obligation of a vendor under an open contract </B><B><U>[</U></B><B>such as mine, which was an implied or oral contract, which by definition is an `open contract'] is to make a good and marketable title to the property sold and to deliver an abstract of his title to the purchaser within a reasonable time. . . .</B>" Not "<B>2½ years later.</B>" They stated that a reasonable time for such to be provided was “<B>within the first two or three months of the agreement. . . .</B>” Mr. Guthrie, one of the barristers for the plaintiff in this case, “<B>. . . presented the idea that [his client] is under no obligation to provide the purchaser with any information as to the title, unless and until he is requested to do so</B>.” However, “<B>Their Lordships were unable to accept that submission</B>.” They stated, “<B>it is clear from the judgments in the courts below (see paragraphs 16 and 19 above) that it [the idea that it must be requested] would not have been accepted either by Brooks J or by the Court of Appeal.” </B>In other words, proof of “<B>good title</B>” is to be given to the purchaser even if it is not requested. In fact, the defendant in the above case “<B>was [found to be] in default through not having supplied [the plaintiff] with the appropriate information as to title</B><B>.</B>”<B> </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="(http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/kanhai-final.rtf)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="(http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/o"><U><B><U>www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/kanhai-final.rtf</U></B></U></A></FONT>) In fact:</div> <bR> <div> <B>The [whole] system of conveyancing is designed to ensure that the buyer gets the land [or the incorporeal hereditament 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" ><A HREF="javascript:dl('http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Conveyancing');" TARGET="_top" TITLE="javascript:dl('http://encycl.opentopia.c"><U><B><U>http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Conveyancing</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> The point is, “<B>The basic legal work necessary to transfer the ownership of land and property requires UK conveyancing solicitors to ensure that the person selling the property actually owns that which is being sold and has the right to do so.” </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.itplusweb.com)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.itplusweb.com)"><U><B><U>www.itplusweb.com</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Your failure to do this has caused a lot of suffering and ruined me financially and hurt a lot of others as well. I fault you for this. But because you knew what was going on and did nothing about the fraud that was taking place. To redeem yourself you must obey the law. You need to provide proof of “<B>good title</B>” as obligated or required. </div> <bR> <div> But even if the titles were merely “<B>name[s]</B>” and were just “<B>personal or moving property,</B>” proof of “<B>good title</B>” was still necessary. Note the following:</div> <bR> <div> <B>The seller of goods and services must give certain implied terms. For goods these are </B><B><U>satisfactory quality</U></B><B>, </B><B><U>fitness for purpose</U></B><B>, </B><B><U>conformity with sample or description</U></B><B> and </B><B><U>the right to sell the goods</U></B><B>. Such implied terms can be excluded or restricted except where the law prohibits it. [and it prohibits unfair and illegal “conditions of sale” such as Mr. Boada's. Hence] It is not normally possible to reduce the statutory legal protection of consumers. </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.clickdocs.co.uk/glossary/implied-terms.htm</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Dr. McInnis, a solicitor, legal author, and scholar, declared:</div> <bR> <div> <B>The standard of care owed by a solicitor to his or her client [or to a third party to which he owes a duty of care because of an undertaking] is the skill and care expected of a qualified and reasonably competent solicitor in the exercise of his or her profession.</B> (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_practice/PP%20-%20Handout%20C.ppt#323,71</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <B><U>,Solicitor Client Relationships</U></B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <div> This is all I am requiring of you. The standard you need to measure up to for the “<B>undertaking</B>” you owe me to prove “<B>good title</B>” is expressed well in the case of <B>Stephen McPartlin -v- Robert Smith of February 19, 2001, Section 16, Central London county Court, ref: CHY99142. </B>The Honorable Judge Cooke declared in this case that Mr. Smith's business used careless, sloppy and indifferent methods of proving title. He lost the case because like Mr. Boada business practices “<B>. . . the statutory declaration . . . was the only proof of title offered, and the conveyance. . . .</B>” The point is a statutory declaration<B> </B>is a poor excuse for proof, because it doesn't prove anything. For example:</div> <bR> <div> <B>What is to stop someone digging up the name of an ancient manor, going before a solicitor and swearing that he owns it, and then using that Statutory Declaration (for which the solicitor asks no proof, as his role is only that of a witness) to sell the manor? </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.baronage.co.uk/2006a/manorial-1.html</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Anyone can say anything they want in this type of affidavit. They could even declare that their neighbor is the real/actual "<B>cow that jumped over the moon</B>" and have a solicitor legalize it. Hence, the<B> statutory declaration</B> is a bubble or an illusion as far as proof goes. It proves absolutely nothing. If anything it proves the seller does not have ownership, because he has no records, and he records would be produced if he were honest. In fact, "<B>a statutory declaration serves to demonstrate not that the vendor owns the lordship [or feudal title] but rather that he [in all] probably does not.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.baronage.co.uk/2006a/Manorial-SD.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.baronage.co.uk/2006a/Manorial"><U><B><U>www.baronage.co.uk/2006a</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.baronage.co.uk/2006a/Manorial-SD.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.baronage.co.uk/2006a/Manorial"><U><B><U>/Manorial-SD.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Why?---because he has no records or documents to prove anything. And if he cannot prove he owns it, he cannot prove that someone else does not own it. Therefore, as Judge Hallett stated in Lynch v. Lynch, “<B>Self-serving declarations made by persons as to their own property [like Mr. Boada's] are not to be given much weight. . . .</B>”<B> </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://"><U><B><U>www.nsbs.ns.ca/registry2000/Sept06Papers/Adverse</U></B></U></A><A HREF="http://" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://"><U><B><U>Possession</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://"><U><B><U>PerscriptiveRights.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT>) No wonder, the Law Society Guide states that statutory declarations<B> </B>really are only to be used, “<B>As evidence of incidental matters arising in proof of title to real property,”</B> not as the center piece of proof. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.lawsociety.org.uk" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.lawsociety.org.uk"><U><B><U>www.lawsociety.org.uk</U></B></U></A><B><U>/productsandservices</U></B><B><U>/services/practiceadvice</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <B><U>/faqs.law#273227</U></B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) To use them as such is not only inappropriate, but suspect. </FONT></div> <bR> <div> For using only a statutory declaration, Judge Cooke declared that Robert Smith was guilty of “<B>Negligence,</B>” and “<B>negligent misrepresentation.</B>” He wrote, “<B>It is really a case of very serious negligence in what is a vital and important part of proving a title where there are no documents.</B>” (#22) He also wrote, <B>“. . . He [Mr. Smith] and his organization are seriously deficient when it comes to what could be called the legal and professional side.</B>” (#3) The side that his solicitors should have corrected. In fact, he was so disgusted with the solicitors involved that he declared, “<B>. . . I am highly disturbed that any firm of solicitors should ever be party to this.</B>” (#10) He was considering turning the solicitors in for misconduct. He stated, “<B>I regard it as serious as that.</B>” (#11) Why, because the whole thing was reckless and one of the titles was proven to be utterly false and the other was defective in title or proof of ownership. </div> <bR> <div> But Judge Cooke not only criticized the situation, he gave an answer or standard to prevent future misconduct, law suits and malpractice. He wrote that it must be proven:</div> <bR> <div> <B>(i) that the manor [or feudal title] exists at all, and why; </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>(ii), who the manor [feudal title] has been vested in [that is, who exactly are the lawful owners and prior owners, etc-there should be statutory declaration from these individuals and other substantiating proof.]; </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>(iii), how it comes to be vested in the vendor [again proof of the valid right-not just his statement, but collaborative statements from the people involved]; </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>(iv), [and] that the vendor and his predecessor have not conveyed it away [proof or affidavits from original owners]. . . .</B>” </div> <bR> <div> This whole process he wrote must be “<B>open to inspection,</B>” not done in secret and “<B>rigorous research may be needed</B>” to verify that the root of the title is authentic and accurate and everything is established that there is not doubt but what the person who was sold the title actually owns the title. Remember it is "<B>. . . the solicitor's [your] responsibility is to make sure that the all the legal formalities involved in conveyancing are observed.</B>"<B> </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.matthewpaull.co.uk/convey.html)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.matthewpaull.co.uk/convey.htm"><U><B><U>www.matthewpaull.co.uk/convey.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) You need to do this and do it right. In a Court of Appeals, <B>Ellis v. placeCityRogers, April 25, 26, May 3, 1884, Cotton, Bowen and Fry, L.JJ</B>, it states that it is “<B>. . . the general rule that a purchaser is entitled to require a good title. . . ,</B>” even a<B> </B>“<B>. . . </B><I><B>primâ facie</B></I><B> a right to a good title. . . .</B>”  In the House of Lords <B>in Hilton v. Barker Booth & Eastwood (a firm), December 14 2004 and February 3, 2005</B>, the Lords state:</div> <bR> <div> <B>If a solicitor is careless in investigating a title or drafting a lease, he may be liable to pay damages for breach of his professional duty, but that is not a breach of a fiduciary duty of loyalty; it is simply the breach of a duty of care.</B></div> <bR> <div> Thus far you have been careless and your despicable behavior was a breach of a <B>duty of care</B> especially since you promised to prove that the Imperial Hohenzollerns actually conveyed to me all the rights to the <B>Principality of Halberstadt</B>, which promise was never carried out. All I have ever asked you was to do your obligated and required duty.</div> <bR> <div> In a Chancery Division Court, <B>Prestige Properties Ltd v. Scottish Provident Institution and another, January 30, 31, February 1,4,5,8,28 and March 13, 2002.</B> Judge Lightman declared the following on a solicitor's duty and obligation in the sale of real property:</div> <bR> <div> <B>He [the seller's solicitor] should take precautionary measures to ensure that the seller is entitled to sell the whole of the estate which he is to contract to sell, and seek to spot and rectify any defects in title. </B></div> <bR> <div> Being an experienced solicitor for over thirty years, you “<B>knew or ought to have known</B>” this. You could have been the hero, the professional who saved people if you cared, instead of exposing them to a dirty rat or con artist who robbed them. Judge Lightman also said, “<B>The solicitor's obligation was . . . to ensure that the title was what a reasonably competent solicitor acting with proper skill and care would accept. . . .</B>”<B> </B>That is, the standard you should have used in proving “<B>good title</B>” and fulfilling your “<B>undertaking.</B>” You should use the standard Judge Cooke described and specified which I described above which is basically the same as what the Law Commission delineated in a statement on conveyancing. That is: </div> <bR> <div> . . . <B>the classic definition of a good root of title, given in T C Williams and J M Lightwood, </B><I><B>A Treatise on the Law of Vendor and Purchaser </B></I><B>(4th ed 1936) p 47, is an instrument of disposition which “must deal with or prove on the face of it, without the aid of extrinsic evidence, the ownership of the whole legal and equitable estate and interest in the property; contain a description by which the property can be identified; and show nothing to cast any doubt on the title of the disposing parties.</B> <B> </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc254.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc254.pdf"><U><B><U>www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc254.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div>  Remember as Lord Demning stated, a solicitor “<B>owes allegence to a higher cause. The cause of truth and justice.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_practice/PP%20-%20Handout%20C.ppt#273,46</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <B><U>,Court Relationships </U></B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) You need to do what is honorable and right. The finished product must not be substandard. It must be professional and in everyway worthy of a solicitor of the supreme court of England and Wales. </FONT></div> <bR> <div> In asking you to do your duty and prove “<B>good title</B>” and fulfill your “<B>undertaking,</B>” you need to understand something about who supposedly conveyed the <B>feudal title of Halberstadt</B>, because your client being the liar that he is has tried to weasel out of what was made eminently plain in the documents of conveyance. Some of the following is a repeat and some of it is new. But it is critical. </div> <bR> <div> It is a documented historical fact that from <B>1648</B>, the ownership of the <B>Principality of Halberstadt</B> was the exclusive possession of the Prince Electors of Brandenburg. They eventually became the Kings of Prussia and finally the Emperors of Germany as well as Kings of Prussia. From 1806 to 1814 the Principality was part of the illegal “<B>defacto</B>” Napoleonic Kingdom of Westphalia, but the "<B>de jure</B>" rights of sovereignty were always in the hands of the rightful owners---the sovereign heads of the Royal House of Prussia. It is also a well-known historical verity that Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany, the last emperor, owned all the sovereign "<B>de jure</B>" and "<B>defacto</B>" rights to the <B>Sovereign</B> <B>Principality of Halberstadt</B> among many others in his possession. He was, in fact, the recognized <B>Prince of Halberstadt. </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.geocities.com/henrivanoene/genprussia.html</U></B></FONT>) (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.geocities.com/eurprin/brandenburg.html</U></B></FONT>)</div> <div> (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II_of_Germany</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> The legal term “<B>Heirs-in-Trust,</B>” which Mr. Boada used in the <B>March and June 2000 Statutory Declarations</B> was the is the right term to use for the Imperial heirs to all the "<B>de jure</B>" family possessions, because of the type of will the Emperor created. An "<B>Heir-in-Trust:</B>"</div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . is given to the person or persons appointed by the testator's settlement to succeed to his estate, in order that they may fulfill the purposes of the testator's will. They are termed heir because they succeed to the estate of the deceased; and fiduciary heirs, because the succession devolves upon them in trust for the fulfillment of the provision of the settlement.” </B>(John Trayner, <I>Latin Phrases and Maxims: Collected from the Institutional and Other</I><B>, </B>p. 109) (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://books.google.com/books?id=oRMMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=%22heir</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <B><U>+in+trust%22+definition&source=web&ots=Gxk-GH3ST0&sig=WzdcNxZQ_</U></B></div> <div> <B><U>MQK4r6bhrNKvZWOHb8</U></B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <div> Such are sometimes called “<I><B>Haeres fiduciarius</B></I>” or “<I><B>fidei-comissarius</B></I><B>.</B>” (Ibid.) According to the terms of the Emperor's will, HIRH Prince Louis Ferdinand of placecountry-regionPrussia became the heir to all the rights and estates of his grandfather as head of the Imperial Hohenzollern household. The Emperor's will was a common type of trust and will combined. It had certain stipulations and included a “<B>fidei-commissum”</B> or “<B>Heir-in-Trust”</B> or “<B>Heirs-in-Trust”</B> requirement like the wills of most of the European noble and royal families in those days. These families wanted the family fortune to held together instead of split up. To put into effect their wishes, they imposed certain specific family rules in their wills adding a trust dimension to it, which created an “<B>Heir-in-Trust</B>” or “<B>Heirs-in-Trust</B>” qualification. But like many wills with an “<B>Heir </B>or<B> Heirs-in-Trust</B>” stipulation, it brought about legal contests and contentions in the family. At the time of the conveyance of the <B>Principality of Halberstadt</B>, in the year <B>2000</B>, it was legally settled that the fiduciary trustee (temporary “<B>Heir-in-Trust</B>”) and presumptive heir to the family's “<B>de jure</B>” rights was HRH Prince Christian Sigismund of Prussia (Preussen) with HIRH Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia as the senior heir and successor to the "de jure" throne of both the Kingdom of Prussia and the Empire of Germany, which included being the secondary or ancillary “<B>Heir-in-Trust</B>” until he turned 25. These two men of all the Imperial family exclusively constituted the “<B>Heirs-in-Trust of the Imperial Hohenzollern family patrimony.</B>” They were the “<B>de jure,</B>” not the “<B>defacto</B>” owners of the <B>Principality of Halberstadt </B>with<B> </B>Prince Christian as temporary head of the family and in charge of the family's estate. This decision was again sustained in a court hearing in <B>2001.</B></div> <bR> <div> Despite continuing legal challenges from the two oldest sons of Prince Louis Ferdinand---Friedrich Wilhelm and Michael, this situation did not changed except in <B>2002</B> when Prince Georg at age 25 became the full head of the family and in control of everything, except as a fiduciary trustee he is to provide stipends for his uncles. In <B>2004</B>, Prince “<B>Georg Freidrich was [again] accorded [or recognized as the recipient of] the full heritage of Prince Louis Ferdinand.</B>” That is, all the court battles failed to ruin the ultimate desires of Prince Louis Ferdinand in conferring on his grandson all the rights and privileges he received from the Emperor and his father the Crown Prince. (See: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/hohenzollern_case.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/"><U><B><U>www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/hohenzollern_case.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>  and <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.haus-preussen.de/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dprinz%2Bmichael%2Bvon%2Bpreussen%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl"><U><B><U>http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.haus-preussen.de/&sa=X&oi</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.haus-preussen.de/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dprinz%2Bmichael%2Bvon%2Bpreussen%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl"><U><B><U>=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dprinz%2Bmichael%2Bvon%2B</U></B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.haus-preussen.de/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dprinz%2Bmichael%2Bvon%2Bpreussen%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl"><U><B><U>preussen%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG</U></B></U></A>) </div> <bR> <div> In my last letter of a few days ago, I went over the fact that the <B>Deed of Transfer</B> and <B>March and June 2000 Statutory Declarations</B> make it clear that it was the “<B>Heirs-in-trust to the Imperial German House of Hohenzollern patrimony</B>” or in other words, Prince Christian and Prince Georg, that conveyed the title. After all, the shareholders of the <B>Hohenzollern Family Land Trust, Inc</B>. were all supposed to be "<B>members and descendants of the Imperial and Royal Hohenzollern Family</B>" according to the <B>November 2000 Statutory Declaration</B> and of that Imperial family only Prince Christian and Prince Georg were actually the “<B>heirs-in-trust.</B>” </div> <bR> <div> Since the Emperor Wilhelm II was the last to hold or own the “<B>Feudal Principality of Halberstadt,</B>” this eliminates all the Imperial posterity of the first two Emperors, Wilhelm I and Friedrich III. And since the conveyors were identified as the heirs to the Imperial family patrimony (titles, money, heirlooms, etc., that is, the Imperial property, this again narrowed it down to HIRH Louis Ferdinand Prinz von Preussen who died in <B>1994</B>, the recognized heir after the Crown Prince, and then to Prince Christian and Prince Georg in the year <B>2000</B> when I supposedly purchased the feudal principality.</div> <bR> <div> This Prince Louis Ferdinand, who died in <B>1994</B>, was the individual that Mr. Boada declared, on the phone to me, was the person who made the original deal with him to allow some “<B>de jure”</B> feudal properties to be sold off. No one else could have ok'ed this as he was the only one before his death who held all the rights to all the feudal or “<B>de jure</B>” territories of the Emperor. All of these rights went to his successors after him as mentioned above. </div> <bR> <div> Now with this in mind consider the undeniable fact that the Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia through the Imperial family's attorney twice, once through his office manager and once through their new attorney denied ever conveying a principality and having anything to do with Mr. Boada or any of his so-called organizations. You will be hard pressed to prove “<B>good title,</B>” but you are obligated and owe me a <B>duty of care</B> in this important area. Note the following:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Generally the rules for establishing a breach of a duty of care are: </B></div> <div> <B>• </B><B><U>The act or omission was negligent</U></B><B> [</B>failure to provide “<B>good title</B>” and failure to fulfill your “<B>undertaking</B>” was negligent<B>]; </B></div> <div> <B>• </B><B><U>The act or omission was voluntary</U></B><B> [</B>your confession shows you knew what was going on---thirty years of experience shows you knew better or should have known better than to have done what you did<B>]; </B></div> <div> <B>• </B><B><U>The act or omission must have as its foreseeable and natural consequence harm to another individual</U></B><B> [</B>I told you my ship was sinking, my financial house was burning or financial disaster was inevitable unless you fulfilled your promise<B>].</B></div> <div> <B>Assessing the breach involves the use of the “reasonable man test” in which the Court assesses if a duty of care is owed by one individual to another [an “undertaking” in which I relied and still rely established this], whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable on the facts and circumstances of the case in question [I told you what was going to happen] and the actual harm which occurred [that is,I went bankrupt as a direct result of your breach of care]. </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/pdfs/dutyofcare.pdf)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/pdfs/dutyofca"><U><B><U>www.jisclegal.ac.uk/pdfs/dutyofcare.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Another legal test showing guilt or reckless disregard is called “<B>the neighbour principle.</B>” Lord Atkin wrote:</div> <bR> <div> <B>You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour…. that is, persons so closely and directly affected by my acts that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation</B>. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://netk.net.au/Tort/Tort.asp" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://netk.net.au/Tort/Tort.asp"><U><B><U>http://netk.net.au/Tort/Tort.asp</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> In this you miserably failed. In fact, you seemed heartless and uncaring that I was in financial duress and all you would have to do is do your duty to bring me relief and spare me the ruin it brought to me from which I am still suffering. I am still relying on you to fulfill your duty to me, so I can get out of the hole I am in, but I'm not holding my hat---I don't think you are honest and honorable enough to do your duty.</div> <bR> <div> In addition, to the above tests of guilt, there is the “<B>rational man test,</B>” which is, what would a reasonable, capable and fair-minded solicitor do? Certainly what you did to me was not what a reasonable, capable and fair-minded solicitor would do. You basically gave me the finger, deceitfully said you've carried out all your legal duties toward me, cried “<B>caveat emptor,</B>” turn a deaf ear to the clear evidence of fraud I sent you, and threaten to sue me for even bringing up the idea that you client defrauded me. I fault you for this. But “<B>the proof will be in the pudding.</B>” So far your behavior has been reprehensible. Your only real redemption is to prove “<B>good title.</B>” Because no reasonable, intelligent man would throw away his career if he could prove himself honorable and true. We'll just have to see if you are indeed a thief or not.</div> <bR> <div> There is an old saying in conveyancing, which reads, “<B>. . . a thief cannot convey good title. . . .</B>”  (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_(property)</U></B></FONT>)  Why?---because he is a thief. We will see if you will prove “<B>good title</B>” and fulfill your “<B>undertaking</B>” or not. </div> <bR> <div> Now, for more evidence of fraud: My <B>Deed of Transfer</B> declares that I have “<B>Full Title of Guarantee.</B>” I noted that all the other <B>Deeds of Transfer </B>(copies of other victims deeds)<B> </B>that I have in my possession do not contain the statement of “<B>Full Title Guarantee.</B>”  All of these other documents were all dated after mine. It is obvious, that the reason for removing <B>“full title guarantee</B>” is because it would, by law, counteract your unlawful “<B>conditions of sale,</B>” which were implemented quite a few months after Mr. Boada sold me the so-called <B>Feudal Principality of Halberstadt</B>. You probably have copies from the Law Society of how Mr. Boada's website did not have the “<B>conditions of sale</B>” on his website when I bought. This was obviously implemented afterwards, which is why you never even brought it up to me as an argument against helping me since they didn't exist yet. And Robert Owen Smith, who bought another phoney title from your client about the same time as I did, declared that not only was there no “<B>condition of sales,</B>” but he made up a contract, because none existed and it did not have your illegal “<B>conditions of sale</B>” on them. (The Law Society has a copy of his letter) </div> <bR> <div> But there are a number of reasons the statement of “<B>Full Title Guarentee</B>” was taken out of future deeds. One is that there is an obvious contradiction between “<B>full title guarantee</B>” and the “<B>conditions of sale,</B>” and this can be readily seen by looking at the law. “<B>Full title guarantee</B>” according to the <B>Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994</B> means in <B>2(1)(a)(b):</B> </div> <bR> <div> <B>If the disposition [Deed of Transfer in my case] is expressed to be made with full title guarantee or with limited title guarantee there shall be implied the following covenants- </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>(a) that the person making the disposition has the right (with the concurrence of any other person conveying the property) to dispose of the property as he purports to, and </B></div> <div> <B>(b) that that person will at his own cost do all that he reasonably can to give the person to whom he disposes of the property the title he purports to give.</B> (<B>(2)(a)(b)</B> <B>are on limited title guarantee so they are not quoted from the law.</B> (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_19940036_en_2.htm#mdiv1)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukp"><U><B><U>www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_19940036_en_</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_19940036_en_2.htm#mdiv1)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukp"><U><B><U>2.htm#mdiv1</U></B></U></A>)</div> <bR> <div> According to the above quote<B>, </B>the seller has promised in a legally binding way in the <B>Deed of Transfer</B> that he, Mr. Boada, had “<B>good title</B>” and that he had the full and complete right to sell the property. He also promised by this means that he would do whatever he “<B>reasonably</B>” can “<B>at his own cost</B>” to prove “<B>good title.</B>” In other words, he would do this to ensure that the purchaser received “<B>good title.</B>” No wonder you and Mr. Boada wanted to take this damaging phrase out of all future <B>Deeds</B>. This promise was opposite to the “<B>illegal,</B>” “<B>imbalanced,</B>” “<B>unfair,</B>” and “<B>null and void</B>” “<B>conditions of sale</B>” that were supposed to protect Mr. Boada in his sale of falsehoods. Neither of you wanted to protect the buyer in any way. You wrote “<B>that the purchaser was to have satisfied himself before agreeing to the sale and was not entitled to raise requisitions after [the] sale.</B>” (<B>March 14, 2003 </B>letter)</div> <bR> <div> Your actions, circumstantial evidence in this one thing, again clearly demonstrate “<B>probable cause</B>” that your scheme was “<B>willfully and knowingly</B>” designed so that you would not have to prove “<B>good title.</B>” In other words, again, you knew what you were doing. It was to avoid giving protection for the buyers or allowing them any recourse to justice while you enabled your client, Mr. Boada, to run the scam with impunity. It was obviously a sinister and despicable way of doing business, because the scheme robbed and cheated every single purchaser of enjoying “<B>good title</B>” to their property. </div> <div>  </div> <div> I fault you for failing to protect all of Mr. Boada's victims by giving him the unlawful and illegal excuse never to prove anything was valid or authentic. And using the excuse of the illegal and misguided “<B>conditions of sale,</B>” which were unfair and imbalanced and frankly, against the law you were sworn to uphold. They were “<B>null and void</B>” as written and you should have known this. And really what did you expect a con man would do in such a situation? You set up a system in which he could rob and cheat everyone of the property they purchased simply by never providing “<B>good title.</B>” I fault you for that because without “<B>good title</B>,” there is nothing left, but “<B>bad title,</B>” and “<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>A bad title is one which conveys no property to a purchaser of an estate.</B>”<B> </B>(</FONT><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.lectlaw.com/def2/t030.htm" </U></B><A HREF="http://" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://"><U><B><U>www.lectlaw.com/def2/t030.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) This is fraud and, if estimates are right, you knowingly participated in robbing and cheating hundreds of people of their hard earned money and brought financially ruined some. I fault you for this. </FONT></div> <bR> <div> Another test of integrity and honest is expressed in the following statement, “<B>There is a growing tendency for courts in solicitor negligence cases to favour the pursuer when considering what would have happened if the solicitor had properly performed his or her duty</B>.” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1001053.aspx" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1"><U><B><U>www.journalonline.co.uk</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1001053.aspx" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1"><U><B><U>/article/1001053.aspx</U></B></U></A></FONT>) If you had done your duty, you would have spared 80 to 90% of the victims from the scam and you would not be charge with misconduct, nor would you be investigated for being an accomplice to fraud, which may happen if you cannot prove “<B>good title.</B>”</div> <bR> <div> You need to remember, as John Jackson, a lay member of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, wrote:</div> <bR> <div> <B>When people consult solicitors they are sometimes [very] vulnerable [I certainly was---I trusted you]. . . . The advice they get and the way in which it is communicated can make a big difference to their lives [it certainly damaged my life big time]. Consequently, it is important that the public should be [protected from scoundrels like you when they should be] able to respect a solicitor's expertise, to trust a solicitor's judgement and be entirely confident in a solicitor's honesty. The Tribunal's function is to uphold these principles. . . .</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/annual_report_2005.pdf</U></B></FONT>) <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> It is sad that you have proven yourself to be untrustworthy. Instead of protecting the public, you helped your client set up a system where he could easily defraud them, because of your despicable and illegal “<B>conditions of sale.</B>” </div> <bR> <div> The Law Society guidelines for <B>property fraud (25.12) (</B>incorporeal property fraud in this case), directs one to <B>Annex 25G</B>, which states that you should, among other things, “<B>Verify the . . . bona fides of your client,</B>” especially when receiving such strong and obvious evidence that fraud might be taking place. There were red flags and warning signs which would have shocked any reasonable person. <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#444444" FACE="Arial" >I fault you because I sent you clear and convincing evidence of fraud way back in the year <B>2001</B> and you failed to use the contact information I sent you to confirm that what I told you was true. This makes you guilty of gross <B>negligence</B> and lacking “<B>due diligence</B>” or behavior expected of a solicitor and officer of the court.</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#444444" FACE="Arial" >For example, </FONT>in the section of the Rules 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 a solicitor must have been involved.</B>” That is you. Many of the “<B>signs</B>” mentioned were ignored, such as, “<B>fictitious solicitor</B>”-Mr. Boada wrongfully claimed to be an attorney, when he wasn't, claimed to have graduated in peerage law from the Modern Univeristy of Lisbon when he didn't---that University has no law school. There was “<B>incomplete contract documentation</B>”-no contract existed at all, “<B>unusual transactions</B>” and Mr. Boada used an “<B>alias</B>” right on the “<B>Deed of Transfer</B>” and the <B>“Statutory Declarations</B>”-he called himself “<B>Antony Boada Cartaya,</B>” instead of Antonio A. Boada. </div> <bR> <div> When such alarming evidence was staring you in the face, and stuck out like a sore thumb, you turned a deaf ear to it all. No reason man would do this. You were certainly not “<B>vigilant.</B>” You were the careless and irresponsible. You did not “<B>question unusual instructions</B>” or “<B>unusual transactions</B>” like to process a so-called “<B>incorporeal hereditament</B>” conveyed without a “<B>licensed conveyancer,</B>” if you were not the <B>conveyancing solicitor</B>, or process a sale of real property that is supposed to be according to the “<B>Law of Property Act[s]</B>” without “<B>deducing title</B>” or “<B>disclosing defects of title</B>” before completing the conveyance. These are just a few of the signs of wrong doing that you appeared to be oblivious to. </div> <bR> <div> But the real truth, according to your confession, is that you knew all along that the whole thing was a scam. You, therefore, “<B>willfully and knowingly”</B> acted the past of an accomplice or an accessory to your client's crimes.</div> <bR> <div> Fiona Woolf, a former president of the Law Society said, “<B>The good name of solicitors is being jeopardised by a minority who betray the high principles of which our profession is proud.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://lawsociety</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>.org.uk/documents/downloads/Profethics_SettingUp.pdf</U></B></FONT>) Apparently from your confession, you are one of them. I believe you should spend the rest of your life righting your wrongs to all the victims, who thought they were buying authentic “<B>incorporeal hereditaments</B>” when you knew all along they were only buying “<B>name[s],</B>” that is, pretense, counterfeits or fakes rather than real, genuine “<B>feudal titles</B>” under the <B>law of real property </B>as advertised. In other words, unless you can change and prove “<B>good title</B>” and show yourself honorable and above board; then, the following should present to you a very sobering reality about your future prospects. It is from the “<B>Statement of the Law Society of England and Wales</B>” in the year <B>2000</B>:</div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . the Law Society's experience [is] that solicitors know they stand to lose their credibility and their livelihood if they are in any way connected to crime [like you have been according to your confession]. They know that, in order to retain public confidence, their professional body always takes swift action to sanction them severely. . . .  </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://ec.europa.eu/archives/ISPO/eif/InternetPoliciesSite/Crime/Comments/LawSociety.html</U></B></FONT>) </div> <bR> <div> Why?---to protect the public and the good name of the profession. Otherwise, the profession would leave a foul odor that would reach the high heavens.</div> <bR> <div>  <B>. . . the essential issue . . . is the need to maintain among members of the public a well-founded confidence that any solicitor [you are included in this] whom they instruct [or use] will be a person of unquestionable integrity, probity and trustworthiness. [That was your duty. You advertised “the highest standards of excellence and integrity.” But what did you really do? You knowingly aided and abetted a known con artist. Conclusion:] The reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member.</B> (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.cpso.on.ca/Info_Public/Dis_sum/WEBDISC/2002/MooreM.pdf</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> It is hoped you will yet prove yourself to be honorable and honest and do your duty. This means to fulfill your “<B>undertaking</B>” to me which is to prove the Imperial Hohenzollern family conveyed all the rights, etc. to the <B>Feudal Principality of Halberstadt</B>, or confess what you did wrong in a straightforward way and spend the rest of your life righting your wrongs. Anything short of this means, in my book that you are unworthy to be a solicitor.</div> <bR> <div> As it seems to be out of character for you to honestly fess up to anything in a forthright, candid fashion or ever attempt to right your wrongs (you'd rather other people suffer for your crimes and your wrong doing), you become an undesirable person, unworthy of being a solicitor of placecountry-regionEngland. </div> <bR> <div> Solicitors are supposed to be honorable men who are honest and trustworthy and brave enough to own up to their mistakes and make amends. But this kind of behavior appears to be outside of your experience or your own personal standards or you would have done so long ago. Being substandard in moral or ethical concerns, you do not fit with what is expected of your profession. You just don't fit the mold. Unless, of course, you actually demonstrate a whole different attitude and modis operandi---one that is redeemable or that could actually change and become worthy of the high honor of being a solicitor. To do that you would have to prove “<B>good title,</B>” or own up to your wrongs and mitigate your situation by making amends where possible.</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="id68.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor9"><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="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor11"><U><B>Next Page</B></U></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" > </FONT></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>