Crooked Solicitor14

<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>   |   <A HREF="id72.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor13"><U>Crooked Solicitor13</U></A>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor14</B>   |   <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 Solicitor14</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>   |   <A HREF="id72.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor13"><U>Crooked Solicitor13</U></A>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor14</B>   |   <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>Need to Submit Defense</B></div> <bR> <div> July 3, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Dear Mr. Pitts-Tucker,</div> <bR> <div> I am basically left in the dark about most everything that is going on, but I heard that you have to have your list of witnesses, defense strategy, etc. ready to be submitted to the prosecutor’s sometime in July of 2008. I don’t know if that is true or not, but in case it is, may I remind you that honesty and being honorable is much better than putting up lame excuses.</div> <bR> <div> If your excuses are anything like the ones reflected in your <B>March 14 </B>and <B>September 29, 2003 </B>letters to the Law Society, you are in deep trouble. I will go over each major excuse you made and why it was way out in left field. </div> <bR> <div> Remember, you really don’t have a fighting chance unless you can make sense.</div> <bR> <div> All of your excuses were weak rationalizations each in defense of the idea that you were not the <B>conveyancing solicitor </B>and therefore had no legal obligation or duty to prove "<B>good title:</B>" The following are not in any particular order or arrangement:</div> <bR> <div> <B>(1) </B>the "<B>conditions of sale</B>" argument, which has already been blown out of the water for two reasons, (a) it didn’t exist when I purchased, and (b) it violated the law—<B>"Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999,"</B> which the courts say applies to real property and therefore to "<B>incorporeal hereditaments.</B>" Legally, you "<B>knew or ought to have known</B>" better than this. Why therefore, did you try making this as an excuse, because it is nonsense? It only made you look bad or incompetent, which is a prelude to misconduct?,</div> <bR> <div> <B>(2) </B>saying that the sale was like an auction is also absurd. Did you really think you would get away with this? No where in Mr. Boada’s website was this mentioned. But everywhere, it declared that the "<B>incorporeal hereditaments</B>" were sold through English law of real property. Why did you even bring this up and imply something that wasn’t so? This is also looney tunes,</div> <bR> <div> <B>(3) </B>declaring you knew from the onset that the title was merely a "<B>name,</B>" nothing more, not a real "<B>incorporeal hereditament</B>" that had to be conveyed by the <B>Law of Property Act</B>. But this shows that you knew the whole thing was fraud from the very beginning. Did you really want to communicate the fact that you participated in the criminal act of malicious misrepresentation? Yet that is exactly what you did, </div> <bR> <div> You stated that the title was only a "<B>name,</B>" because you admitted to the Law Society that "<B>German titles have been abolished in all but name. . . .</B>" But you also knew that your client sold "<B>feudal property,</B>" not merely "<B>names</B>" or "<B>titles,</B>" but "<B>incorporeal hereditaments.</B>" All the legal documents and Mr. Boada’s website makes this eminently clear. And you knew it. For example, on <B>June 27, 2000</B>, you sent me a letter with a corrected copy of Mr. Boada’s <B>March 2000 Statutory Declaration</B>. You wrote:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Please find enclosed the legalised Statutory Declaration for the Principality of Halberstadt, incorporating the change to the title from Feudal County to Feudal Principality</B>. (The Law Society has a copy of this letter)</div> <bR> <div> Then you signed this letter. Note two important things: (1) you corrected the <B>Statutory Declaration</B>, not Mr. Boada, which is what a conveyancing solicitor would do, and (2) you wrote that what was conveyed was the "<B>Principality of Halberstadt</B>" or a "<B>Feudal Principality,</B>"<B> </B>not just a "<B>title</B>" or merely a "<B>name,</B>" but real <B>feudal property</B>. Any reasonable man would note that it was not a "<B>title</B>" that was supposedly conveyed at that time and you noted that as well---and not just a "<B>Feudal County,</B>" but a "<B>Feudal Principality</B>." Remember you are the one who wrote this. Now if you knew this was all untrue and false as you declared in your letters to the Law Society, that is, that such a claim was an outright lie or misrepresentation, then you "<B>knowingly and willfully</B>" participated in a horrible criminal act. This is not just misconduct. This is a punishable crime. I’d call that a bad excuse, if there ever was one. Instead of implying that you were not the conveyancing solicitor, it was incriminating and made you look really bad,</div> <bR> <div> <B>(4) </B>you declared that the sale is a "<B>done deal</B>" before you enter the picture. Another denial that you were the only person who could legally convey a title in this company. No one else was an attorney or licensed conveyancer. The excuse is also poor. It shows a lack of understanding. You stated that it is an "<B>agreement already made.</B>" In other words, you say the sale, the contract, etc. is already made before you are involved. But the problem with this is that, "<B>Conveyancing Does Not Start Until There Has Been A Sale</B>," not before.<B> </B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#808080" FACE="Arial" >(</FONT><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.relv.com.au/conveyancing/conveyancing.asp)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.relv.com.au/conveyancing/conv"><U><B><U>www.relv.com.au/conveyancing/conveyancing.asp</U></B></U></A></FONT>)<B> </B>The point here is:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Given that conveyancing is the process of transferring ownership of real estate from one person to another, there is no need for conveyancing services until such time as a sale has taken place. It is only after the sale has been effected that the purchaser acquires the right to require a transfer of ownership.</B> (Ibid.)</div> <bR> <div> The "<B>done deal</B>" excuse doesn’t in any way prove or even imply that you are not the <B>conveyancing solicitor </B>in this situation. Rather it implies that you are grasping at straws. As this is a really flimsy rationalization. It proves nothing,</div> <bR> <div> <B>(5) </B>you denied completing the conveyancing documents. You said you only notarize them and legalise them at Mr. Boada’s request. This excuse can’t hold water. There is nothing water tight about it---it has too many holes in it where the argument leak out leaving you empty handed. </div> <bR> <div> You declare that you receive an "<B>executed deed of transfer</B>" when it sent to you by Mr. Boada. (<B>March 14, 2003 </B>letter) You state that "<B>the deed of transfer was not drawn by me nor was the statutory declaration.</B>" (Ibid.) Fortunately, in the <B>December 11, 2000 </B>letter to Dr. Dunsford-Mac a’Phearsoin, you reveal you true colors, your true relationship and responsibilities. Your firm wrote to him, "<B>We primarily check the drafting of the Deeds of Transfer. . . .</B>" Interestingly, this is the work of a <B>conveyancing solicitor</B> who is supervising an assistant or assistants. Note, "<B>In England and Wales this is usually done by a solicitor or a licensed conveyancer. Either may employ or supervise an unqualified conveyancer." </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conveyancing</U></B></FONT>) Unqualified assistants, like Mr. Boada, under the supervision of a solicitor or licensed conveyancer can do the work "<B>preparing sale and purchase documentation for clients to sign e.g. contracts, TR1s, SDLT1s and SDLT60s and completing Mortgage Deeds." </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="javascript:dl('http://www.totaljobs.com/Jobseeking/job28270136.html');" TARGET="_top" TITLE="javascript:dl('http://www.totaljobs.com/"><U><B><U>www.totaljobs.com/Jobseeking/job28270136.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) In such a situation, the supervisor will "<B>check the drafting of the Deeds of Transfer,</B>" etc. exactly as you described what your firm does for their your client’s company British Feudal Investments, Ltd. Hence, here is an unmistakable admission that you were acting as the <B>conveyancing solicitor</B>. </div> <bR> <div> You also state in your <B>March 14, 2003 </B>letter that "<B>completion is achieved when the legalised deed of transfer and/or statutory declaration are sent out to the purchaser.</B>" That is, your firm sends it out after they have checked it out, notarized it and legalised it. </div> <bR> <div> But you do more than merely look at the legal documents, you correct them. (See #3 above) Therefore, you know what they say. So for you to declare that, "<B>As a solicitor taking a declaration I believe I have no duty to examine the contests of the declaration as such,</B>" you are perpetrating a lie. (<B>March 14, 2007 </B>ain letter) This statement is untrue. You do check the legal documents like a supervising <B>conveyancing solicitor </B>would and should. Example, when I discovered a misspelling in all three pages of the "<B>Deed of Transfer</B>" and sent it back to you, it was your firm, not Mr. Boada, that corrected them and you personally initialed the change. On <B>September 13, 2000</B>, Naffisa Skeikh, your employee wrote, "<B>I will be sending you the Deed of Transfer for Halberstadt, as amended shortly.</B>" Then on <B>September 20, 2000</B>, she wrote, "<B>You will see the first two pages replaced as corrected, while the third has been corrected and initialed by Roger Pitts-Tucker.</B>" Besides you admitted in you <B>September 29, 2003</B> letter to the Law Society that Mr. Boada and/or BFI, Ltd. does its business "<B>through my firm.</B>" And what kind of business did he do---conveyancing of feudal property via the law of real property through you. Conclusion: You were doing the normal work of <B>conveyancing solicitor </B>using assistant(s). </div> <bR> <div> By definition, "‘<B>conveyancing work’ is confined to the clerical tasks associated with arranging for the transfer of ownership from one person to another.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.lawyersconveyancing.com.au/reference.asp)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.lawyersconveyancing.com.au/re"><U><B><U>www.lawyersconveyancing.com.au/reference.asp</U></B></U></A></FONT>) As stated on Pressroom 2002, "<B>Solicitors only prepare the paper work . . . for property documentation and other situations required under the civil law.</B>" (<B>www.legalpundits.indiatimes.com/press02.htm</B>) They should give "<B>due diligence</B>" in advising their clients as well. So a "<B>conveyancer,</B>" in this case a <B>conveyancing solicitor</B>, is "<B>one whose business is to draw up conveyances of property, as deeds, mortgages, leases, etc.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://simplestartpage.com/Convelyancer.html_2313Co" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://simplestartpage.com/Convelyancer."><U><B><U>http://simplestartpage.com/Convelyancer.html_2313Co</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Or, have one’s assistant or assistants do so. But you are the one who was ultimately responsible; therefore, you did the checks and corrections. Again, this is what a conveyancing solicitor should do. The point is, "<B>Once the conveyancing solicitors have carried out all of the necessary checks the transfer of ownership can proceed.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.itplusweb.com" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.itplusweb.com"><U><B><U>www.itplusweb.com</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> There was no doubt in Mr. Boada’s mind, or on his website, who was the conveyancing solicitor.<B> </B>As stated before,<B> </B>Mr. Boada testified in his letter of <B>March 5, 2003</B> to you, a letter which you sent to the Law Society along with your <B>March 14, 2003</B> response the Law Society, that, "<B>. . . The solicitor need only deduce title going back fifteen (15) years,</B>" and "<B>Roger Pitts-Tucker, conforming to the norms of English law, deduces title strictly back to the fifteen years required by English law.</B>" If so, why didn’t you do this? I’ve quoted this before, but again, you need to get this straight. Your client’s Florida attorney Margaret Montalvo, Esq. in her professional capacity officially speaking for and in behalf of Antonio A. Boada, stated on <B>December 16, 2002 </B>that, "<B>Pitts-Tucker & Co., which is a firm of solicitors, handled all [not some, but all] legal transactions from start to finish.</B>" (The Law Society has a copy of this letter) She further stated, "<B>The solicitors [your firm] validate the titles in England.</B>" This validation or "<B>deducing of title</B>" is one of the major duties of a <B>conveyancing solicitor</B>. Mr. Boada’s website also declared that "<B>All such conveyances [the conveying of ‘feudal titles of nobility . . . under the law of property. . . .’] are done by our specialised, fully licensed attorneys. . . .</B>" (Mr. Boada’s website under "<B>Purchase Documents and Guarantees</B>") Under "<B>Our Firm</B>" on his website, Mr. Boada identified the principal solicitor, who does "<B>all</B>" the "<B>conveyances,</B>" as "<B>Mr. R. A, Pitts-Tucker.</B>"</div> <bR> <div> Again, all the excuses for you not being the <B>conveyancing solicitor </B>are lame, weak, unconvincing and contradict the facts, </div> <bR> <div> <B>(6) </B>You said the real seller was the "<B>Trade Consult Group, Ltd.,</B>" yet this company was an unused "<B>shelf corporation</B>" created originally by "<B>Intershore Consultant (Pty) Ltd.</B>" and sold to Mr. Boada 9 months after he supposedly conveyed the feudal property to me. In other words, this company had nothing to do with the conveyance. (The Law Society has the letters from the Republic of Seychelles that show this to be true) So the significance of this, instead of helping your cause makes everything look even worse. Besides, all through your letter you defended <B>BFI</B> or <B>British Feudal Investments, Ltd.’s </B>actions in regard to this sale not the <B>Trade Consult Group, Ltd. </B>For example, you stated you held money (my money) for "<B>a transaction between BFI on behalf of the actual seller and Mr. Goff.</B>" You admit to being an "<B>agent for the vendor,</B>" Mr. Boada and "<B>monies for the sale are transferred to order of BFI</B>" and "<B>legalisation is requested by the purchaser and BFI. . . .</B>" You also wrote in your <B>March 14, 2003 </B>letter, "<B>Mr. Boada has through his company BFI"</B> had "<B>license</B>" from companies to sell via British Feudal Investments, Ltd. So a reference to the so-called "<B>Trade Consult Group, Ltd.</B>" is mute. It has nothing to do with the conveyance or the idea about you being the conveyancing solicitor. So far all your excuses lack substance, </div> <bR> <div> <B>(7)</B>You declared that the transfer or conveyance was made over the Internet as if that had any bearing on things. This is way out or nonsense. What does that have to do with anything? Online conveyances under English law are done all the time over internet. And Mr. Boada’s website declared that you did all the conveyances, </div> <bR> <div> <B>(8) </B>One particularly poor excuse was the one where you plead ignorance saying you were "<B>Amanuensis,</B>" in regard to all of this, which means to be like a secretary typing out a transcript. In other words, "<B>I am an unthinking robot or a brainless puppet in this case. How can anyone think I could possibly be guilty or responsible?</B>" In other words, you were trying to play the innocent bystander game. Sorry, this is way below the standards of your profession. You are supposed to be a solicitor, not a mindless secretary. If anything, this excuse shows you to be someone who is reckless and irresponsible and unworthy of being a solicitor, especially in light of the fact that I sent you clear and unmistakable evidence of fraud along with the contact information in early 2001, but you refused to hear, refused to check it out, refused to take responsibility. No reasonable solicitor would do such a thing. Fraud is a big deal. To neglect its possibility and evidence for it is, in itself, misconduct and malpractice. If this was all you did, this alone would justify throwing the book at you, and</div> <bR> <div> <B>(9) </B>You made another amazing statement—another irrational blunder in writing to the Law Society. You said that the way your client did business, through you, was how Mr. Boada’s previous solicitors did business. Therefore, the implication is that it must be okay. Okay for what? </div> <bR> <div> Okay to disobey the <B>"Law of Property Act" </B>and totally fail to provide a "<B>good</B> <B>root</B>" or "<B>abstract of title</B>?"—resulting in nobody really owning what they paid for, because Mr. Boada was a con artist? Okay to fail to disclose fatal defects of title leaving the victim, myself, with nothing in the end? Okay to ignore serious evidence of fraud and deceit and therefore to continue to encourage more fraud to take place and more people to lose their money buying ficticious property? Okay to fail to fulfill your firm’s "<B>undertaking</B>"—a sacred promise which I warned you would result in financial ruin for me? That’s okay? I suppose all of this is okay if you have no conscience or are heartless, being an antisocial. But a solicitor totally lacking a conscience could careless if other people are hurt. The only thing that matters is if he himself is hurt in some way.</div> <bR> <div> So getting closer to home, is it okay to make lame excuses to the Law Society, which could cause you great distress? Isn’t that kind of reckless? But if you have some humanity in you is it okay to standby and let me be destroyed financially because you refused to do your duty? Or, okay to rudely ignore me for six years and not communicate with me even though every letter I sent was basically an invitation to talk about things? Okay for you to threaten me and say, "<B>caveat emptor</B>," and that you have done everything you were required to do, when, in fact, you had not performed your legal and professional obligations toward me? None of this is okay, and you "<B>knew or ought to have known</B>" better as a professional?</div> <bR> <div> A lot of superfluous other things were written in the two letters of which most were lame, unsubstantiated and irrelevant, which suggests you were overly self-confident and didn’t do your homework—like actually reading the "<B>Investigators Report,</B>" which was mostly merely a reiteration of obvious facts. To write the things you did makes me think you believe you are "<B>above the law</B>"—untouchable and immune, which is pretty smug and irrational. You must have felt very comfortable like you could get away with anything to write what you did. You may still think that way still despite the fact that you really have "<B>no leg to stand on</B>"—nothing solid or strong. Every excuse of yours is faulty and extremely weak. </div> <bR> <div> In fact, if the above excuses are all you have, you are "<B>walking on thin ice.</B>" Especially because one of the excuses is clearly incriminating and really amounts to being a confession that you "<B>wilfully and knowingly</B>" promoted what you knew was an ugly scam from the very beginning. No wonder you negligently failed to check out any of the evidence of fraud, you already knew a crime had taking place and tried to hide the fact or get away with it.</div> <bR> <div> But knowing all too well that your client had defrauded me, to keep this under wraps or hidden, you put everything at risk—your career, your reputation, your lifetime savings, everything, rather than do the things I asked of you, which was to prove that you were honorable and honest and that the Imperial Hohenzollern family actually did convey the "<B>incorporeal hereditatment</B>" as claimed by your client. If it really happened this should be easy—a way could be found. The point is, no one in their right mind would do what you did, unless they were guilty and they knew it. </div> <bR> <div> Since you cannot fulfill your "<B>undertaking</B>" or prove "<B>good title,</B>" you might as well fess up and admit it, take your licks, and at least be an honorable man. You might by this action bring a really awful criminal to justice—Mr. Boada. This kind of action would suggest that you are redeemable, but to defend yourself with lame excuses only confirms that you are reprobate and truly unworthy of your profession or the high status of being a solicitor.</div> <bR> <div> If you have an "<B>Ace in the deck,</B>" you had better pull it out now. As far as I am concerned, I am relying on you for the business I wish to begin to fulfill your "<B>undertaking</B>" to me, which was to provide the promised "<B>documents</B>" that show the Imperial Hohenzollern’s did convey the feudal property to me through your client in the year 2000 as claimed. This proof must be in full and complete accord with Judge Cooke’s legal counsel that such evidence must be verifiable and complete. </div> <bR> <div> Of course, there is at least a 90% probability that you cannot do this, because both know that fraud occurred. That being the case, just own up to it and admit the truth. I believe you will help yourself a great deal by such, rather than to continue on foolishly, which only makes you look like you are operating without a full deck, or literally lost some of your marbles. </div> <bR> <div> This letter, along with every letter I’ve sent, is another invitation to communicate with me. </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="id72.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor13"><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="id74.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor15"><U><B>Next Page</B></U></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="id74.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor15"><U> </U></A></FONT></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>