Crooked Solicitor13

<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>   |   <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>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor13</B>   |   <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 Solicitor13</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>   |   <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>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor13</B>   |   <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> <B>*************************************</B></div> <div> <B>Change of Tribunal Date</B></div> <bR> <div> June 15, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Dear Mr. Pitts-Tucker,</div> <bR> <div> I don’t know why you changed barristers or requested an adjournment to <B>November 18, 2008</B>, but this will not change the fact that your excuses are lame or really nonsense. Nor will it change the fact that you owe me the fulfillment of your firm’s "<B>undertaking</B>" written for and in behalf of your client. This breach of trust and good faith is serious and wrenching. It is prima-facie, bold faced<B> </B>misconduct and malpractice on your part. It would be, as I warned you and Mr. Boada in late 2000, financially disastrous to me, and it directly caused my bankruptcy. Why? Because your failure to prove "<B>good title</B>" and/or prove that the Imperial House of Hohenzollern (the Prinz/Princessin von Preussen’s), in truth, conveyed all it’s unique rights to me through Mr. Boada, which I will explain later. </div> <bR> <div> Your failure to live up to the standards of your profession, your lack of "<B>due diligence,</B>" your malicious, black hearted dereliction of duty left me with "<B>bad title,</B>" which, by legal definition, means a title <B>". . . which conveys no property to a purchaser of an estate.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t030.htm)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t030.htm)"><U><B><U>www.lectlaw.com/def2/t030.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) I received nothing for the money I paid out. I was, by law, supposed to receive a "<B>good and marketable title,</B>" but instead you basically gave me the finger and wrote "<B>caveat emptor,</B>" stated you had done everything you were supposed to, and then threatened to sue me. Then after doing me all these wrongs, you never attempted to right any of your wrongs. My question is, where was your professional "<B>duty of care,</B>" because of your "<B>undertaking</B>" to send me "<B>documents</B>" proving the Imperial family actually conveyed the "<B>incorporeal hereditament?</B>" And where was your reasonable, prudent, competent response to the evidence I send you that an ugly fraud had occurred? Were you sleeping on the job? Were you a part of the scam? </div> <bR> <div> This neglect maintained and perpetuated a serious crime and it is one of the most irresponsible and unprofessional acts I have ever seen. You hurt many innocent, unsuspecting people as you continued to support your client in selling "<B>incorporeal hereditaments</B>" and leaving them with "<B>bad</B>" or horribly "<B>defective</B>" or "<B>flawed</B>" titles to their property. Really, Mr. Boada could make-up titles or use extinct one and sell them as though they were real. </div> <bR> <div> You, in effect, excused yourself by saying that your client had "<B>conditions of sale</B>" that made everything he did okay. He could rip people off and cheat them with impunity. You set your client up to run a confidence game and loaned him your good name, which further gave the impression of legitimacy. But those very "<B>conditions of sale</B>," which you defended as lawful violated the law, and they didn’t even exist when I purchased—the Law Society has hard copies of Mr. Boada’s website when there were no such conditions in early 2000.</div> <bR> <div> It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or terribly intelligent man to see that these “<B>conditions of sale</B>” were one-sided favoring Mr. Boada, the conditions were not individually negotiated, they put the consumer at an unfair disadvantage, the language was not plain or clear except to an attorney, in other words, they were sneaky and backhanded, that is, they were imbalanced to the detriment of the client in terms of contract rights contrary to good faith, and they were illegal because they were misleading about legal rights, they denied redress, many never even saw or knew the "<B>conditions of sale</B>" even existed as the web page that had them was an offset page—practically hidden so that some, probably most people never saw them or knew they even existed, they also gave Mr. Boada the unlawful right to fail in his duty and obligations to the law, such as, providing <B>"good title" </B>or the requirement to disclose latent defects of title, thus they imposed a penalty that is unjust enabling and empowering illegal practices and destroying the obligation for "<B>reasonable care.</B>" </div> <bR> <div> Just one or two of the above offenses are enough to make the "<B>conditions of sale</B>" null and void. But Mr. Boada’s <B>conditions of sale </B>violated every offense listed above. All of this was in clear violation of the <B>"Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.</B>" </div> <bR> <div> No reasonable officer of the court or legal professional would allow, or ever worse, promote, encourage or defend such despicable and unjust violations of these regulations, which, by the way, were designed to stop scams. How could you support such a thing? How could you consider yourself honest or following the high moral standard of your profession when you went against the ethical values and protections designed to protect consumers? Legally you "<B>knew or ought to have known</B>" better, including the fact that "<B>contracts for interest in land,</B>" such as the oral or implied contract that most people had with Mr. Boada "<B>are within the scope of these regulations."</B> The point: the Court of Appeals confirmed that the Directive and Regulations cited above apply to land contracts, such as, for "<B>incorporeal hereditaments,</B>" “<B>feudal property</B>” and/or real estate. (<I>the London Borough of Newham v Khatun, Zeb, Iqbal and the Office of Fair Trading </I>[2004] EWCA Civ 55)</div> <bR> <div> These are just of few examples of your reckless practices. You have been like a loose cannon endangering everything having anything to do with your client. Yet you stated in your <B>April 27, </B>2001-letter to my temporary Pre-Paid legal attorney, Barry J. Marcus, Esq., that, "<B>The sale of the Feudal Principality of Halberstadt was made under English law</B>" and "<B>You will appreciate that such a sale is made under English law. . . .</B>" (The Law Society has copies of these letters) In writing Mr. Branscum, one of the investigators, on <B>August 17, 2001</B>, you stated that, "<B>The sale of the Principality was conducted in accordance with English law and hence there is no jurisdiction in the United States.</B>" (The Law Society has a copy of this letter) The point here is, what was done was in violation of the laws of England. As an English solicitor for Mr. Boada, you “<B>knew or ought to have known</B>” this, and that you had a duty to stop the wrongful practices that were going on. </div> <bR> <div> Margaret F. Montalvo, Mr. Boada’s Florida attorney, wrote for and in his behalf on <B>December 16, 2002</B> that:</div> <bR> <div> <B>With respect to jurisdiction, BFI’s place of business is England. That is where the company maintains its office and staff. . . . Research as to titles which the client wishes to acquire is done in England. The solicitors validate the titles in England. The titles are issued and mailed out from England to the client’s address of choice. . . . Pitts-Tucker & Co., which is a firm of solicitors, handled all legal transaction from start to finish.</B> (The Law Society has a copy of this letter)</div> <bR> <div> Why did you not obey the law? It was your solemn and sworn duty as a professional? A reasonable, prudent, and a responsible solicitor would obey the law, he is supposed to defend. Why didn’t you? The point is, you were the one who <B>"handled all [the] legal transactions from start to finish,</B>" hence, you are the person to be held accountable for all that went wrong legally. Mr. Boada’s victims are your victims. If you had ensured that each person received a <B>“good and marketable title,</B>” no one would have been victimized or, at least, 90% of the scam would have been destroyed, and instead of bringing dishonor to you, you would be a hero or be held in honor for having recognized and foiled a known scammer—not one who aided and abetted one.</div> <bR> <div> In Mr. Boada’s <B>March 5, </B>2003-letter to you, which you shared with the Law Society, it clearly stated that, <B>". . . The solicitor need only deduce title going back fifteen (15) years,</B>" and "<B>Roger Pitts-Tucker, conforming to the norms of English law, deduces title strictly back to the fifteen years required by English law.</B>" I can’t understand why you didn’t do this? Mr. Boada obviously knew who the <B>"conveyancing solicitor" </B>really<B> </B>was. Why didn’t you? Why didn’t you know you that you were legally obliged to prove "<B>good title?</B>" Why didn’t you do this? </div> <bR> <div> Legally you will be held to the standard that you <B>"knew or ought to have known</B>" this, including the fact that you were advertised on Mr. Boada’s website as the one does all the "<B>conveyances</B>" of all the "<B>incorporeal hereditaments</B>" or “<B>feudal property</B>” he sold, which were to be conveyed "<B>under the Law of Property Act 1922-1925 of the United Kingdom.</B>" You even admitted to the Law Society on <B>September 29, 2003 </B>that you looked at Mr. Boada’s website and asked him to change some things "<B>sometime prior to January 2001 when I was able to change some aspect of his website by agreement with him which referred to myself.</B>" Prior to <B>January 2001 </B>some things did change about you (I have hard copies of the website both before and after this period, which I shared with the Law Society), yet all the way until Mr. Boada took his website down in late <B>2002</B>, and for a few weeks in <B>2003</B>, Mr. Boada’s website still referred to you as the solicitor who does all the "<B>conveyances.</B>" You were the "<B>conveyancing solicitor</B>" and you ruined me by your neglect of duty. </div> <bR> <div> In fact, you still owe me proof of "<B>good title</B>" and the fulfillment of your "<B>undertaking.</B>" If you do not provide such, I will never be able to start the business I meant to start eight years ago, before my bankruptcy. I went to the expense of becoming a "<B>certified professional consultant</B>" in early <B>2000</B> after purchasing the "<B>incorporeal hereditament</B>." I got a business license in Oregon for a company I called "<B>Honors and Recognitions</B>" and joined the "<B>National Association of Employee Recognitions</B>" (this association has since changed their name) all with the idea I could be a consultant in a field I knew a lot about, but unfortunately was highly competitive. With the novelty of the “<B>incorporeal hereditament,</B>” I could have successfully launched a new very lucrative career. I have lost as much as a half a million dollars in lost revenues, because of you, as my business never could materialized. </div> <bR> <div> That is the past, now, I still need you to supply "<B>good title</B>" and fulfill your "<B>undertaking</B>" so I can start this business. In order to have a competitive advantage, I am depending on you to do your duty. I am relying on you to prove “<B>good title</B>” and fulfill you “<B>undertaking.</B>” This means providing verifiable and confirmable evidence that the Imperial Hohenzollerns, who deny this, actually did, in fact, convey the feudal principality, not through German domestic law, but through international law as rightful “<B>de jure</B>” sovereigns of their ancient royal patrimony. (See the article: “<B>Sovereignty & the Future of Nobility and Royalty</B>” on the website <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.nobility-royalty.com)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.nobility-royalty.com)"><U><B><U>www.nobility-royalty.com</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Otherwise, my ship will sink to the bottom of the sea or my potential house will burn down to the ground. If you have the moral fibre, the good character expected of a man with the high status of being a solicitor of England, you will choose to do what is honorable and obey the law and the guidelines of your profession. If you do not have these essential characteristics, you will miserably fail.</div> <bR> <div> You advertize offering “<B>top quality legal services</B>” on your new website. (<A HREF="http://www.pitts-tucker.co.uk)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.pitts-tucker.co.uk)"><U>www.pitts-tucker.co.uk</U></A>) All I am asking is that you fulfill your rightful obligations to me, which is to follow the legal precedence detailed in the case of <B>Stephen McPartlin -v- Robert Smith of February 19, 2001, Section 16, Central London county Court, ref: CHY99142. </B>In this case, which your client sent to me or one of his other victims, Judge Cooke not only criticized the deplorable situation that took place, but 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 other incorporeal hereditament] exists at all, and why; </B></div> <div> <B>(ii), who the manor [feudal property] has been vested in [that is, who exactly are the lawful owners and prior owners, etc., there should be statutory declarations from these individuals and other substantiating proof including contact information in order that all statements can be verified and confirmed as truthful, authentic and factual]; </B></div> <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> <div> <B>(iv), [and] that the vendor and his predecessor have not conveyed it away [proof or affidavits from original owners including contact information so the evidential statements can be proven not to be forged or fabricated]. . . .</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 “<B>root of the title</B>” 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. </div> <bR> <div> Judge Cooke’s written statement, in the above-mentioned case, declared that the major problem with Mr. Smith’s dealings with Mr. McPartlin was that the “<B>. . . the statutory declaration . . . was the only proof of title offered, and the conveyance. . . .</B>” For using only a <B>statutory declaration</B>, like Mr. Boada did in my case, 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>” Yet in my case, you declared in your “<B>undertaking</B>” that there were “<B>documents</B>” to prove a valid and legitimate conveyance took place from the Imperial Hohenzollerns, who now deny that this conveyance took place. Judge Cooke  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>” The side that his solicitors were required to ensure were done properly and correctly. In fact, the Judge 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>” He was considering turning the solicitors in for professional misconduct. He stated, “<B>I regard it as serious as that.</B>” Why, because the whole thing was reckless and unprofessional. One of the <B>“incorporeal hereditaments</B>” was proven to be utterly false and the other was defective in title or proof of ownership—the very things your client is guilty of—and the very things you could have prevented if you had done your duty.</div> <bR> <div> Remember it is "<B>. . . the solicitor's [your] responsibility is to make sure that 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>) This includes providing a good “<B>root of title</B>” that is accurate ensuring that the seller has adequate evidence of a “<B>good and marketable title</B>” to the property, and therefore has the legal and lawful right to sell such property. This is what you owed me as the buyer, to society as a professional and to the seller as his legal advisor. </div> <bR> <div> I fully believe it would help your case a great deal—mitigate your situation, if you would promptly do your duty and provide “<B>top quality legal services</B>”—services that reflect high quality, lest you also be shown to be guilty of false and misleading advertizing.</div> <bR> <div> Now, I want to switch gears, as food for thought. I want you to think about how things will look to the tribunal judges. The fact is, no sane man would throw away his practice and jeopardize his livelihood and lifetimes’ savings, if he could prove himself honorable and honest. Yet you have refused to show that an honest transaction took place even when your “<B>undertaking</B>” declared that you would do so. What does such an action suggest? Could it be that you can’t prove the feudal principality of Halberstadt was legitimately conveyed, and you know this all to well so you have tried to hide the fact? After all, if it were an honest trade, there would be all kinds of ways to prove it really/truly happened as claimed by your client.</div> <bR> <div> The point I am trying to make is that your refusal to come up with anything solid all these years really looks bad for you. It is a red flag or warning sign that something is terribly wrong. That is, that you are trying to hide a crime, that you knew all about, because no one, who has half a brain, would throw away his career, chance several hefty law suits and perhaps have criminal charges thrown at him, if he could prove everything was above board. But you apparently cannot prove your innocence. Your behavior or lack of honorable behavior in proving “<B>good title</B>” and fulfilling your firm’s promise betrays you!</div> <bR> <div> In fact, the truth must be so incriminating and dangerous to you that you would rather take your chances violating the guidelines of your profession and breaking the laws of the land hoping that no one holds you accountable, rather than try to prove a fake is true and remove all doubt. But your quilt is eminently obvious and clear by your evasions. You have something to hide—something really big. And any reasonable judge or tribunal member would easily see this. It is so loud and clear. It sticks out like a sore thumb. No one could miss this. It is too blatantly obvious. Your guilty is as plain as the nose on your face to any rational, thinking person. You might as well fess up and take responsibility for it. I believe in the long run you will fare a lot better by being honest than by giving lame excuses that no one will believe anyway.</div> <bR> <div> Again, changing barristers and requesting a delay in the tribunal will not delay the inevitable result unless you can actually prove in a way that can be confirmed and verified as real and authentic that a “<B>good and marketable”</B> title was conveyed to me, and thus fulfill your duty as well as discharge your “<B>undertaking.</B>” Otherwise, you really have no leg to stand on and will suffer the hard consequences, you deserve. You advertize “<B>top quality legal services.</B>” I’d fall off my chair and see pigs fly, if you come through with the impossible. More likely, you will give lame excuses and dishonor yourself and show you have been untrue to your profession. I actually feel sorry for you instead of being angry. Do you realize how utterly impossible it is that your client actually/rightfully conveyed legitimate feudal property under your legal authority? </div> <bR> <div> I offer these things are food for thought. You have dug a pit for yourself, I’m afraid. And you seem to be avoiding doing what is honorable, commendable and mitigating in such a situation—that which would make you look good or redeemable instead of guilty and revolting. I am merely suggesting that you do what is ethically and morally right—the kind of things that would prove you are worthy of your profession.</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="id71.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor12"><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="id73.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor14"><U><B>Next Page</B></U></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" > </FONT></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>