|
Justice is one of the greatest and most beautiful things next to life itself and the glorious principle of freedom.
This website is dedicated to bring some very despicable men to justice.
|
Crooked Solicitor15
If you have been victimize by any of these despicable men, Antonio A. Boada, Mark T. Williams or Roger Pitts-Tucker, go to "The Answer" and learn how you can join in a class action suit against them.
*************************************
Another Delay
August 3, 2008
Dear Mr. Pitts-Tucker,
I heard that you requested more time to turn in your strategy or defense documents, witness list, etc. It must be extremely hard to make lame excuses sound rational when, in fact, it is all nonsense or a sham. None of it is built on the rock of reality and you and your team know that. And so does everyone else. It will be obvious to the judges and any reasonable person that you "knew or ought to have known" better than you did and were inordinately negligent, or you were a partner to Mr. Boada in his crimes.
The one hurdle you’ve never been able to jump over is what I put in my original official complaint against you to the Law Society. It has been the same complaint I have brought up to you over and over again once I could see that the missing link was that the Imperial family had no part in conveying what they alone owned. That is, the Principality of Halberstadt was an Imperial principality or sovereign possession of the heirs of the German Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia and had been their exclusive property since 1648. Hence, I wrote in my complaint to the Law Society:
What would satisfy this particular grievance [the official complaint] is if Roger Pitts-Tucker would provide irrefutable proof that could be verified and confirmed that the transfer of the title was actually/truly conveyed by senior members of the Imperial and Royal House of Prussia through Antony Boada to me as claimed.
Your firm gave me an "undertaking" that the above connection to the Imperial family would be proven real, which I relied upon to bail me out of financial ruin. I made this eminently clear to you both before and after your firm’s solemn promise. The "undertaking" was for and in behalf of your client that I would be provided with "documents" that would prove that the transaction was legitimate and the owners actually conveyed the feudal property or incorporeal hereditament to me. This never took place and I went bankrupt as a direct result.
You have never fulfilled your "undertaking," because in truth, no one can prove something that is so blatantly false really happened especially in light of the fact that two attorneys and a general secretary of the Imperial family, speaking for and in behalf of the head of the Imperial and Royal House of Hohenzollern—HI&RH Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia, have made it perfectly clear that the whole deal is about as true and legit as a "wooden nickle." In other words, it was an act of fraud and misrepresentation, pure and simple. They never sold the principality nor any principality or any other of their possessions.
Your actions bear a mighty testimony that you knew it was fraud from the very beginning:
(1) I told you so back in early 2001 that the Imperial family’s attorney stated that they did not convey said property—they, in fact, denied it ever happened,
(2) it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that no one in their right mind would risk everything important to them—their livelihood, their career, their business, their lifetime savings, their retirement, risk heavy fines, risk being "struck off" forever from the list of practicing solicitors, and even a possible prison term, that is, no one would do this, unless they knew that they could not prove the transaction was above board and real. Since you could not prove it was legit, you did the only thing you could do and that is stall and stall and stall and never fulfill your duty or your promise---this isn't right, but it is what you have done;
(3) you revealed your shame—your dereliction---your wrongdoing when you admitted that you knew the whole thing was deceitful and dishonest to the Law Society back in 2003; and
(4) it is obvious that you knew there was something very fishy or sinister about this whole deal, because you had Mr. Boada add some terms or "conditions of sale" designed to protect your client, rather than institute the provisions of the law designed to protect the buyer---like have him prove "good title" and reveal all latent defects of title or incumberances required by the Law of Property Act(s). That is, all you were interested in is to protect your client in his craft, not make him obey the law, which would destroy his scam.
If someone walks like a duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck, that someone is a duck. Similarly, if a person walks like a guilty person, talks like a guilty person and acts like a guilty person, then it sure looks bad for you. The obvious and undeniable fact is you are in trouble.
You have evaded this one critical area (proving that a true conveyance take place) even though you made an "undertaking" to that effect, and even though you were obligated to provide a "good root of title."
The point, "probably cause" does exists that fraud took place and that you played a prominent role in the scam. As a result, there might be a forthcoming investigation according to more than one spokesmen with the City of London Fraud Squad, who told me this might happen depending on what you do about proving or not proving that a valid transaction took place.
So I wonder what you will do about it. You have already admitted you knew the transaction was sneaky and treacherous, because you stated that the sale of the feudal Principality of Halberstadt was merely a "name," not real "feudal property" or an "incorporeal hereditament" as claimed in the legal documents and literature. You stated that it was only a "name," because you declared that "German titles have been abolished in all but name." Yet, all of Mr. Boada’s literature, the "Deed of Transfer" and the "Statutory Declarations"—even your own firm’s letter of December 11, 2000 to Dr. (name redacted) declare in unmistakable terms that the property sold by Mr. Boada was "feudal," not a "name," but real, genuine and authentic "feudal property"—an "incorporeal hereditament" and, as such, had to be conveyed by "the law of real property." And in the same paragraph in that March 2003 letter, you admitted that you knew about this utter falsehood from the very beginning. You explained that ". . . this has been their course of business [the way they do things—to sell "names, not "incorporeal hereditaments", even] . . . through their previous firm of solicitors." In other words, you admitted that you knowingly and willfully participated in transactions that were not what the legal documents, the "Deeds of Transfer" or "Statutory Declarations" said they were. You even stated that your client does his conveyances—his BFI type of "business . . . through my [your] firm. . . ." (from your March 14 & September 29, 2003 letters to the Law Society) If he did his conveyances through your firm, then you as the solicitor involved are culpable or accountable for what took place.
So, yes, I really do wonder what you will do about this. It is the major obstacle or "thorn in your side" as far as I can tell.
To say you are "amanuensis" is a total rejection of the standards of your profession and your obligations as a solicitor. This would be to admit you were totally irresponsible and derelict in your duties. This would be negligence and obvious misconduct. Yet, you made this lame excuse in your letters to the Law Society in 2003.
The best answer is just to admit you were wrong. This is the only honorable thing to do. Anything less is egg on your face. It would only make you look foolish and crooked and even more guilty than you are as well as being the kind of person who is incapable of reform. At least, by fessing up and admitting the truth, you could help bring Mr. Boada to justice and you could be looked at as someone who is on the right side of the line, instead of the kind of person who would hide his infamy and his guilt and try to get away with murder as it were. And to do so with lame excuses or obvious stupidities would be embarrassing and humiliating, because everyone will see through it.
You could, on the other hand, restore your honor, your worth and build a reputation for being a man of truth, honesty and integrity. This is what I’d like you to see as the best alternative—the only one that makes sense.
Again, this letter as many other have been is a request that you fulfill your firm’s "undertaking" to me. Or, fully and completely admit your faults. The latter would be far better than to use such things as lawyer tricks, stalls, distraction, playing the blame game, changing the subject, denying everything, refuting the obvious, using evasive tactics—the hide and duck game, or use gimmicks or other nonsense techniques or ploys. This kind of thing would only demonstrate to the judges and any reasonable person who heard it that you are unworthy to be a solicitor. But if you are straight-forward and up-front, you have a chance—a real possible chance.
The only way you can do this is just to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That kind of courage is respected and will, no doubt, mitigate the outcome.
So, please no longer neglect me and your "duty of care" toward me. Do what an honorable and good man would do—not what an sneaky, conniving man would do!
Sincerely yours,
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 “The Answer” for more information.
|