Crooked Solicitor 17

<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>   |   <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>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor 17</B>   |   <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="id79.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor 20"><U>Crooked Solicitor 20</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id80.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor 21"><U>Crooked Solicitor 21</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 Solicitor 17</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>   |   <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>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor 17</B>   |   <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="id79.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor 20"><U>Crooked Solicitor 20</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id80.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor 21"><U>Crooked Solicitor 21</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>Prove it</B></div> <bR> <div> 10/13/08</div> <bR> <div> Dear Mr. Pitts-Tucker,</div> <bR> <div> I may not be able to find out who your witnesses will be in regard to my case. But I know beyond any shade of a doubt the <B>Michael Hohenzollern-Saxe -Weimer -Civitella -Cessi -Lambrino </B>will not attend. He is the fake man, who never lived—the one you defended.</div> <bR> <div> My problem is, I am always left in the dark, but I know this fabrication, this imaginary man will not be there. In fact, he has never been anywhere on earth. He is non-existent, and unless you are some kind of terribly naive nut case, you know that as well as I do.</div> <bR> <div> You also obviously know that fraud has taken place and you are in danger right now because of it. In fact, if everything was all above board, there would be no problem, and you would have set the record straight. But you can’t and you know it, so out come the lame excuses. The fact is, it would be pretty hard not to know that Mr. Boada is a scammer and you helped him do so. You even set him up in a business in which you felt he could sell falsehoods with immunity from the law, because of the “<B>terms and conditions</B>” you defended as valid and binding before the Law Society. And your unwitting confession shows that you very well knew that there were serious misrepresentations going on, for instead of declaring that his titles were ciphers or nothing really, but “<B>names</B>” as you explained it, your client proclaimed them as real, genuine property rights, that is, actual “<B>incorporeal hereditament</B>” and, as such, had to be sold via the “<B>law of real property.</B>” </div> <bR> <div> And you knew that. The proof comes from your firm’s letter of <B>December 11, 2000 </B>to Dr. (name redacted). He had inquired about purchasing a German feudal principality (Mergenheim), which he subsequently bought from your client. In that letter Pitts-Tucker & Co., your firm, explains that the feudal properties sold were not “<B>names,</B>” or “<B>copyrights</B>” etc., but were “<B>incorporeal hereditaments</B>” and hence must be sold via the<B> law of real property</B>. What an amazingly profound contradiction! This is completely opposite to what you declared to the Law Society. Question: did you lie to the Law Society? Or, did you lie to Dr. (name redacted)? Either way you lied to one or the other. </div> <bR> <div> I am assuming you would not have the gall to lie to your professional association or, in effect, perjure yourself, and thus give them undeniable proof that you are unworthy of your status as a solicitor. A reasonable, prudent man would not do such a thing. Therefore, I must assume that you told the truth. And if you told the truth, then you <B>willfully and knowingly </B>participated with your client in a despicable act of misrepresentation for a number years, even after I sent you compelling evidence of fraud with the contact information so you could confirm that I was telling you the truth. No solicitor, who had any sense at all, would not have checked things out when the serious allegation of fraud emerged with some substantiation. Nor would a sensible and reasonable man allow his client to misrepresent the truth. Or, would he set up things so his client could rob and cheat people and never be brought to justice because of his “<B>terms and conditions.</B>” By the way, the Law Society has the proof from the web archives that there was no “terms and condition” when I purchased.  This is not the way of integrity, honor and truth. It is the path of a dishonest low life who heartlessly takes advantage and rips people off. </div> <bR> <div> By the way, the Law Society has the proof from the web archives that there was no <B>“terms and conditions</B>” when I purchased.  </div> <bR> <div> But even if you lied to Dr. (name redacted), which would be an act of misconduct, at least the letter your firm set to him amply demonstrates that your firm knew that Mr. Boada advertized and declared that his feudal properties were real property rights, in other words, they were “<B>incorporeal hereditaments</B>” sold through the <B>law of real property</B>, which is opposite of what you told the Law Society. So there you have it, you knowingly participated in deceit. This is below the standards of any true profession. Honesty is valued, not a cock-and-bull story or a falsehood. No true and honest profession tolerates a lack of integrity. Instead of building the image of the profession, such behavior, is an embarrassment and makes everyone look bad.</div> <bR> <div> I will unfortunately be unable to attend the Tribunal hearing, because of your lack of common decency in not fulfilling your firm’s "<B>undertaking</B>" and consequently your "<B>duty of care</B>" to me, which ultimately resulted in my financial ruin, which I told you would happen if you did not provide the evidence that the owners of the property actually sold the intangible property to me. Remember these very owners (the heirs to all the Imperial rights of the German House of Prussia, which included ownership of the Principality of Halberstadt) denied that they ever had anything to do with Mr. Boada or his companies or ever sold the rights to a feudal principality to anyone. So I was left with nothing—I had no proof of ownership, thanks to you—only denials. And you, in spite of your “<B>duty of care,</B>” you did nothing to help me. Instead, you threatened me and declared “<B>caveat emptor</B>” in the face of the fact that there was a “<B>guarantee of title</B>” clause in the “<B>Deed of Transfer.</B>” This kind of behavior is more becoming of a crook than a legal professional who is to be responsible, prudent, honest and truthful.</div> <bR> <div> All I have ever asked of you and continue to ask is that you do your duty as obligated by your firm’s "<B>undertaking.</B>" And that you fulfil your duty as the “<B>conveyancing solicitor,</B>” which you were.</div> <bR> <div> Legally, you "<B>knew or ought to have known</B>" and are therefore responsible for the fact that Mr. Boada’s website stated that you, personally, did "<B>all</B>" the "<B>conveyances</B>" via the "<B>law of real property.</B>" May I also remind you that in your <B>September 29, 2003 </B>letter to the Law Society, you admitted to having observed what was declared about you on your client’s British Feudal Investments, Ltd.’s website and had Mr. Boada correct errors he had about you, but you did not have him change the fact that you were the one who did “<B>all</B>” the “<B>conveyances.</B>” You allowed a serious misrepresentation to be perpetuated. One that deceived myself and many others into thinking that everything was above board. If a Supreme Court solicitor and Privy Council agent was the conveyancer and was insured by the Law Society against wrong-doing, then surely everything would be appropriate and would be done according to the law. But in this I was greatly disappointed because you were to provide a good <B>root of title</B>, which was defined according the a UK Law Commission on conveyancing as:</div> <bR> <div> . . . <B>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> (<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 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>) 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. So evidence of "<B>good title</B>" is required and still expected of you. It is critical that you prove that the Imperial German family of Prussia actually conveyed the title to me as claimed by the <B>Deed of Transfer </B>and <B>Statutory Declarations</B>. This proof must be in full accord with Judge Cooke’s specifications detailed in <B>Stephen McPartlin -v- Robert Smith of February 19, 2001, Section 16, Central London county Court, ref: CHY99142. </B></div> <bR> <div> In this case, Judge Cooke not only criticized the deplorable situation that took place, (no real proof of anything, 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> <div>  </div> <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> <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>” </div> <bR> <div> Remember, “<B>The basic legal work necessary to transfer the ownership of land and property requires UK conveyancing solicitors [you--- Mr. Pitts-Tucker] 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>) </div> <bR> <div> You advertize offering “<B>top quality legal services</B>” on your new website. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.pitts-tucker.co.uk)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.pitts-tucker.co.uk)"><U><B><U>www.pitts-tucker.co.uk</U></B></U></A></FONT><B>)</B> I expect you to measure up to your word. The Law Society will be looking to see what you will do. Remember you own me verifiable and confirmable proof—the “<B>documents</B>” that prove the Imperial family actually sold the feudal property of the principality of Halberstadt to me.</div> <bR> <div> May I remind you that the guidelines of your profession require that you honor your firm’s “<B>undertaking.</B>” Fiona Woolf, a former president of the Law Society said, “<B>The good name of solicitors is being jeopardized by a minority who betray the high principles of which our profession is proud.</B>” <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#00AA00" FACE="Arial" >(</FONT><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://lawsociety.org.uk/documents/downloads/Profethics_SettingUp.pdf</U></B></FONT>) The question is, will you provide “<B>top quality legal services</B>” or betray your trust and expose yourself as unworthy of that trust? Note the following on your duty and obligation as far as your firm’s “<B>undertaking</B>” goes:</div> <bR> <div> (1) <B>The OSS expects solicitors to honour undertakings for so long as their names remain on the roll and regardless of whether or not they hold practising certificates. The Tribunal has power to consider allegations against a former solicitor relating to a time when he or she was a solicitor</B>. (<B>Guidelines</B> <B>18.02(3)</B></div> <div> (2) "<B>. . . the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors will expect its [the undertaking’s] implementation as a matter of conduct.</B>" (<B>Guidelines 18.02</B>)</div> <div> (3) “<B>An undertaking is binding even if it is to do something outside the solicitor's control.</B>” (<B>Guidelines 18.04</B>)</div> <div> (4) The Law Society Guide says that “<B>there is an implied term that an undertaking is to be performed within a reasonable time having regard to its nature.</B>”<B> </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.lawsociety.org.uk/professional/conduct/guideonline/view=chapter.law?PARENT</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <B><U>=424&POLICYID=424</U></B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <div> (5) A solicitor’s <B>undertaking </B>“<B>is a personal legal guarantee by the solicitor that something will be done. . . .</B>”<B> </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.inzo.com/selling/jargon.php</U></B></FONT>) “<B>Solicitors giving undertakings or certifying something to be the case, accept special responsibility to third parties who act in reliance on it.</B>”<B> </B>Allied Finance & Investments, Ltd. v. Haddon & Co (1983); Al-Kandari v JR Brown & Co (1987) I put my reliance on it to deliver me from the inevitable financial devastation it would cause from which I am still suffering after-effects. For example, I cannot establish my business without it. </div> <div> (6) Your firm’s “<B>undertaking</B>” is pretty clear cut and unmistakable in its meaning, especially when taken in context of all the letters I sent you. I pleaded, requested, demanded and did everything I could think of legally to get you to show that the Imperial Hohenzollerns really did convey the feudal property of Halberstadt. I even suggest alternative or optional ways to do this. There could be no mistake about what I wanted and needed. There was nothing ambiguous about your firm’s “<B>undertaking,</B>” but even a confusing “<B>undertaking</B>” is serious for the <B>Guidelines 18.07 </B>states, “<B>An ambiguous undertaking is generally construed in favour of the recipient.</B>” And an <B>undertaking</B> that does not have to use the word <B>“undertaking”</B> in it to be a fully binding  <B>undertaking. </B>The Law Society Guide <B>18.012</B> states that, “<B>An undertaking may be given orally or in writing and need not necessarily include the word ‘undertake</B>’.” </div> <div> (7) Even though the “<B>undertaking”</B> was actually given by Naffisa Sheikh, Esq. who worked for you, the <B>Guidelines</B> <B>18.11</B> makes it clear that, “<B>A solicitor employer is responsible for honouring an undertaking given by any member of staff, including unadmitted staff.</B>” </div> <div> (8) “<B>An undertaking will not be affected by events which occur subsequently, unless these events are provided for in the undertaking itself.</B>” (<B>Guidelines 18.14</B>(<B>2</B>)</div> <div> (9) In <B>18.09</B>, it clearly states,<B> “A solicitor will be held personally liable to honour an undertaking given 'on behalf of'anyone [like for and in behalf of Mr. Boada in this case] unless such liability is clearly disclaimed in the undertaking itself.”</B> Nothing was disclaimed.</div> <div> (10) So important is the sacred promise of an <B>undertaking</B> that, <B>“It is his/her professional duty to honour such an undertaking, even though he may suffer financially as a result, if his clients default.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.strathclydehomes.com/glossary)</U></B></FONT> </div> <div> (11) “<B>A solicitor who fails to honour an undertaking is prima facie guilty of professional misconduct.” </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.lawsociety.org.uk/professional/conduct/guideonline/view=page.law?POLICYID</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <B><U>=426&PARENT=424</U></B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <div> Until you fulfill your <B>undertaking</B> to me, I will continue to make official complaints to the Law Society that you have not done your required duty in regard to this important promise. </div> <bR> <div> I am relying on it to give me the edge in a very competitive field that I need to have any kind of success. I have not and will not be able to break into this field without you doing your duty. I could not start this consulting business back in the year <B>2000</B>.  I tried, I got a business license, I became a certified consultant and took several specialized courses in it. I joined the National Association of Employee Recognitions. I did what I could, but because you did not bother to fulfill your <B>undertaking </B>or sacred promise, I was blocked and thwarted. Who knows exactly how much this has personally cost me—not only did I have to go bankrupt and ruin of my credit, but I lost all the possible income that the consulting business would have provided, which is probably at the very least a quarter of a million dollars.</div> <bR> <div> No wonder I wrote all the letters I did and tried to give you alternative ways to provide the proof. I was in trouble financially. </div> <bR> <div> On <B>September 10, 2000</B>, I wrote: </div> <bR> <div> <B>The only missing link to authentification is the proof that the Imperial Hohenzollern family have actually permitted this title to be transferred in this manner and have accepted payment for that express purpose as the final seal of their acceptance and approval. </B></div> <div> <B>To receive this irrefutable evidence would mean that my claim is solid and defendable. Otherwise, the title remains on shaky ground and could be classified as a legalized illusion or falsehood, wholly unsupportable. </B>(The Law Society has a copy of all the letters that are quoted)</div> <bR> <div> On <B>September 18, 2000</B>, I wrote: </div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . sooner or later every foundation is exposed for what it really is. I need to [know] what kind of foundation my Germantic title is built on. Without this knowledge, I can’t move forward or backward. I am at a complete stand still in this one thing. </B>(The Law Society has a copy of all the letters quoted)</div> <bR> <div> On <B>September 26, 2000</B>, I sent both you and Mr. Boada several ways, several alternatives, to send me proof without compromising their confidential information. And I wrote:<B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>There must be a large number of possible ways to provide impressive evidence (documents) to prove that my title is not a legalized fantasy or falsehood. As long as each of these documents can be verified and confirmed individually as authentic, they can stand strong in support of the truth. And some of these things you, no doubt, have in your possession right now—please send them to me. </B>(The Law Society has a copy of all the letters quoted)</div> <bR> <div> Then on <B>September 29, 2000</B>, I received the official “<B>undertaking”</B> by Naffisa Sheikh as a "<B>lawyer</B>" for and behalf of "<B>British Feudal Investments, Ltd.</B>" The exact words were:</div> <bR> <div> <B>The copies of the documents you have requested of Antony, Baron Chafford are being collected for photocopy and will be sent to you shortly by BFI. I wanted to write to you and let you know that your request is being dealt with and not ignored and that you should be receiving the documents in question shortly. I can as their lawyer, inform you they have been recently inundated with requests and Lord Chafford has had to be present in his Diplomatic capacity as Ambassador, at a number of conferences in Jamaica recently. This has unfortunately slowed matters somewhat but I reiterate that the requested information will be forthcoming at the very earliest date as promised by BFI.</B> (The Law Society has a copy of all the letters quoted)</div> <bR> <div> I was amazed that after how clear I made everything and had received such a legally binding and obligatory promise, as the one above, that you would write to me on <B>March 7, 2001</B> that, <B>". . . all matters have been carried out in the proper manner." </B>(The Law Society has a copy of this letter) You let me be flushed down the toilet rather than do your duty. Why? Why did you do this after all my warnings. I must still rent. I cannot even purchase a house because of you. I needed your help and you let me down.</div> <bR> <div> On <B>October 22, 2000, </B>I wrote<B> </B>that “<B>getting the evidence is truly an urgent issue, so much so that it is of utmost importance to me personally and financially</B>” and “<B>as an analogy, it’s like you have all the water (the proofs I need) that could put out the fire, so my house (a major investment in my life) will not burn down to the ground and leave me empty handed.</B>” On <B>October 11, 2000</B>, I wrote, “<B>. . . if I do not proceed with this business, I stand to lose literally thousands of dollars of lost revenue. I am getting dangerously close to the time that I will be unable to recover most of my business start-up expenses. . . .</B>” (The Law Society has copies of all these letters) There are more such statements wherein I made it eminently clear that I was in trouble and needed verifiable proof—the proof that was promised, proof I was relying on and still need. </div> <bR> <div> As an act of gross inconsideration,  I have not received any replies from you for at least five years despite numerous invitations to rectify things. This does not reflect “<B>top notch legal services,</B>” which you advertize. It is extremely unprofessional and unworthy of your station and profession.</div> <bR> <div> What would a fair-minded and professionally reasonable solicitor do? Would he neglect his duty and let another that he has a legal duty to help suffer terribly for his lack of care? In other words, how do you measure up to the “<B>reasonable man test</B>?” This is serious. It is malpractice and unbecoming. And what about “<B>the neighbor principle</B>?” Lord Adkin declared:</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> Where do you stand in all of this? What kind of standards do you uphold? Certainly not the ones that are expected by the Law Society. Are you then unworthy of the high status and respect of a solicitor of England and Wales? </div> <bR> <div> I expected you to do what is honorable and right, and still expect this of you even though you have, in effect, only injured or hurt me in the past. Time will show what kind of man you really are. The November hearing is not very far away. Remember as Lord Demning stated, a solicitor “<B>owes allegiance 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,Court Relationships</U></B></FONT>) It is important that you do your duty and right your wrongs. Again, I have told you over and over again as I stated to the Law Society :</div> <bR> <div> <B>What would satisfy this particular grievance is if Roger Pitts-Tucker would provide irrefutable proof that could be verified and confirmed that the transfer of the title was actually/truly conveyed by senior members [the rightful heirs] of the Imperial and Royal House of Prussia through Antony Boada to me as claimed.</B></div> <bR> <div> I am relying on you to do your duty and show that you have some real honor inside you.</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="id75.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor16"><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="id77.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor18"><U><B>Next Page</B></U></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="id77.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor18"><U> </U></A></FONT></div> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>