Time is running out. Your firm gave me an “understaking” in the year 2000, which by definition is “an agreement to be responsible for something.” You are responsible to fulfill your firm's words that said on September 20, 2000:

The information I was requesting was verifiable proof that the sellers --- “. . . the Imperial German House of Hohenzollern hereby grant, alienate, give and foreverunto part the feudal Principality of Halberstadt, as per order unto Mr. Donald Goff and his issue. . . .” --- actually sold the Principality to me. (May and June 2000 Statutory Declarations)

The point is, in section 18.09 of the guide, it clearly states, “A solicitor will be held personally liable to honour an undertaking given 'on behalf of' anyone unless such liability is clearly disclaimed in the undertaking itself.” There were no disclaimers in “undertaking,” you have no excuse.

I was only asking for “good title,” to the property, which is my right, that is, I have “. . . primâ facie a right to a good title. . . .” (Court of Appeals, Ellis v. Rogers, April 25,26, May 3, 1884, Cotton, Bowen, and Rry, LJJ) You should know this after 30 years of practicing law. In fact, your firm promised that I would receive this vital information and I relied upon it. I told you a number of times, my financial house was on fire and if I did not receive the confirmable evidence that the Imperial Family actually sold the property to me, my house would burn down, and on another occasion, I expressed the fact the my financial ship would sink to the bottom of the sea without solid knowledge that I had true ownership of the property I bought.

/professional/conduct/guideonline/view=page.law?POLICYID=426&PARENT=424) The professional guide expects you fulfill your firm's word and 18.11 makes it clear that, “A solicitor employer is responsible for honouring an undertaking given by any member of staff, including unadmitted staff.”

Section 18.14(2) also makes it clear that, “An undertaking will not be affected by events which occur subsequently, unless these events are provided for in the undertaking itself.” Again, no conditions or provisions were made in the “undertaking.” It was straightforward and unequivocal that the “documents” I “requested” that prove that the Imperial family were truly involved as the sellers, were “being collected for photocopy” and “I reiterate that the requested information will be forthcoming at the very earliest date as promised by BFI.” This was not done despite my persistent requests and invitations over the past nine years. Yet, “you knew or ought to have known” that the Law Society Guide says that “there is an implied term that an undertaking is to be performed within a reasonable time having regard to its nature.” (www.lawsociety.org.uk/professional/conduct

You have been willfully and knowingly derelict in this duty, which is repugnant and embarrassing to your profession. Your behavior has been shamefully below the standard. And it brought financial disaster to me as a direct result of your breach of “undertaking” just as I warned you would sadly take place if you did not come through with the verifiable “documents.” Your neglect has damaged me in a major way and still holds me back from getting out of the whole you put me in.

You are again earnestly invited to do your duty and fulfill your obligation to me. A solicitor is supposed to be a man of “unquestionable integrity, probity and trustworthiness.” (www.cpso.on.ca/Info_Public/Dis_sum

If you are a man of honour, you will now finally do your duty. If you are not, you will make lame excuses and show you are not worthy of being a solicitor at all. With that fact in mind, you should be struck off the list.

It is certainly your choice. But remember what the consequences could be if you continue to maintain opposition to the guidelines of your profession. I have asked the Solicitors Regulatory Authority to give you one last chance. If you do not decide to fulfill your binding promise to me in the “undertaking,” I know you were heavily involved in fraud, as no one in their right mind would give up everything that matters to them, their income, their lifetime savings, their reputation, their professional standing, their status in the community, their retirement, even perhaps put their freedom in jeopardy, if they could or had the power to prove the conveyance was above board.

In other words, if you do not provide proof that a valid transfer of the “incorporeal hereditament” --- “the feudal property” actually took place in the year 2000 as described in the legal papers, you will show what you really are. And if that is the case, I will be forced to proceed with the evidence of the findings of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and everything I have collected to make a formal criminal complaint against you. Because, as Edmund Burke declared, “All that is needed for the forces of evil to win, is for good men to do nothing.” I will act one way or the other.

On the other hand, if provide verifiable proof --- “the documents” that show a valid conveyance took place, then I will know you have some honour in you and did something right. You would then have discharged your duty to me and I would feel free of this problem. In the meantime, I am completely prevented from recovering and wholly depend on you to do your duty. You need to understand that I am relying on you to come through with your “undertaking,” so I can move on financially. I am stuck otherwise, that is, I am in a financial limbo.

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.

You can turn your back on or disregard the standards and guidelines of your profession, which would be foolish. Or, you can uphold them and prove you are honorable and worthy of the high status of being a solicitor of England and Wales.

The choice should be obvious. With this in mind, I ask you to fulfill your firm’s binding promise to me that the “documents” that provide verifiable and confirmable proof that a real sale took place will be given to me.

Otherwise, you are saying either that you cannot do it, because you know it is false and never took place, or you are saying that you will not fulfill your “undertaking,” because you are willfully reprobate and derelict in your duties, that is, that you knowingly and stubbornly will not follow the basic fundamental rules of your profession.

So if you cannot redeem yourself, if it is impossible, because the Imperial Family will not admit to it, or you cannot obtain any verifiable and confirmable proof that a valid conveyance took place from them to me, simply admit it and take your lumps for the injustice you have caused me. But do something honorable and right this time, because lame excuses will not cut it. That is, this is a very cut and dried case. Neither you nor Mr. Boada have provided the required “documents.” The “undertaking” or your firm’s guarantee was given and this cannot be undone. Hence, there is an outstanding breach --- an ongoing act of misconduct has occurred, and it has never been remedied despite almost 9 years of reminders, invitations, and requests over and over again. Why, have I done this? Because I cannot recover from your failure to fulfill your “undertaking” until you do so. I am in financial limbo without it, and cannot get out of the financial whole you put me unless you comply with the required implementation of the “undertaking.”

My feeling is, if you cannot prove that the feudal Principality of Halberstadt was sold to me from its “de jure” sovereign owners --- the Imperial German House of Prussia in the year 2000 as specified in the legal documents, then your quasi-admission that you knew it was fraudulent or a crime from the very onset, as explained in your March and September 2003 letters to the Law Society, make it clear that you are, at the very least, an accomplice or an accessory to this despicable crime.

. . . the Law Society's experience [is] that solicitors know they stand to lose their credibility and their livelihood if they are in any way connected to crime [like you have been according to your March and September 2003 confessions]. (Statement of the Law Society of England and Wales in the year 2000: http://ec.europa.eu/archives/ISPO/eif/InternetPoliciesSite

The ball is now in your court. It’s your decision as to whether you want to clear your name or face whatever may be the result of your willful neglect to fulfill your obligated duty in regard to your firm’s “undertaking” to me.

Again, I await your reply. This is an invitation to fix the fence or at least mitigate the situation before I lose all control of what happens as in the first complaint. I do not want any money. The following statement from the October 2002 complaint completely fits the present concern. Nothing has changed. What I needed back then, I still need:

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 heirs] of the Imperial and Royal House of Prussia through Antony Boada to me as claimed.

P.S. Let me know if you would like a copy of the second complaint. The Law Society will send it to you later, I’m sure, but you could have a copy now if you’d like. We are all waiting for the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal report.

My second complaint contains the major details of the grievance, all of which boils down to the fact that an “undertaking” was given and not fulfilled. It shows that “reasonable reliance” existed and still exists. Hence, I need the binding promise your firm gave me to be honored in order to repair the serious financial ruin your willful violation or breach of “undertaking” has done to me.

The critical issue for you in regard to me is to fulfill your firm's unconditional “undertaking” to me. Your failure to do so is a despicable act of misconduct worthy of your removal from the list of practicing solicitors.

From August 2000 to the very present --- nine year later, I have repeatedly asked you to produce the proof --- the “documents” that would provide verifiable and confirmable evidence that a genuine transaction occurred between myself and the rightful heirs of the Imperial and Royal German House of Hohenzollern conveying the “feudal principality of Halberstadt” as an “incorporeal hereditament” through Antonio A. Boada as declared in the March and June 2000 Statutory Declarations.

Despite my numerous pleas for this needed validation of the conveyance, you have turned a deaf ear. I told you my “ship was sinking” or my “house was burning down” --- that I would experience financial ruin, yet you did nothing, but ignored me or declared “caveat emptor.” This was a heartless act and I finally had to declare bankruptcy as a direct result of your willful negligence. Yet the standards of your profession clearly state that unequivocal “undertakings” are a professional obligation and duty of such great importance that it is and act of professional misconduct to violate them.

As I see it, your survival as a solicitor depends on whether you choose to defend yourself with lame excuses or you do what is honorable and honest and fulfill your binding promise. In other words, you career is in the balance. The stakes are very high. It could result in financial ruin and prison for you --- proving that you are indeed worthy of being a solicitor.

If you decide not to measure up to the standards of your profession, you will be admitting that either you are (1) an extremely heartless, unfit and a reprehensible person with no conscience or sense of right and wrong, or (2) that you cannot provide any viable proof, because you knew the transaction was and is fraudulent and a scam. If the latter, then, the most appropriate outcome should be prison. If the former, you should be struck off the list.

Either way, this will most certainly bring some kind of ruin to you. This will in all probability happen if you do not do your duty in regard to the binding promise that was made to me. A good definition of an “undertaking” that clearly fits this situation is as follows:

In a legal context, it [an undertaking] typically refers to a party agreeing to a surety arrangement, under which they will pay a debt or perform a duty [prove legitimacy of the conveyance in my case] if the other person [Mr. Boada] who is bound to pay the debt or perform the duty fails to do so. (http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/undertaking)

Your firm's “undertaking” was a binding promise written for and behalf of your client that he would provide the “requested” “documents.” You are now under the express responsibility to come through and fulfill the duty your client failed to do.

You will either do what is clearly right or you will choose to be dishonorable and contemptible in this situation. If the latter, you will undoubtedly suffer needless consequences and financial loss. You may even go to prison, because justice will triumph and the truth will come out.

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 [that is, the rightful heirs] of the Imperial and Royal House of Prussia through Antony Boada to me as claimed.

I am still relying very heavily on you to get me out of the financial hole you put me in by providing the “documents” promised. Then I would have irrefutable proof that I actually own the property I bought. Otherwise, I was robbed and cheated out of having “good title,” which is the same thing as the fulfillment of the “undertaking.”

So far you keep proving over and over again, year after year, that unless there is a fire under your feet, unless you are forced to by coercion or threat or fine, you will not make the ethical and morally responsible choice. This is substandard to say the least. It strongly suggests that you are completely and totally in the wrong profession.

Only if everyone makes complaints will something happen. It’s like the saying, “United we stand divided we fall.” Only when the authorities see that hundreds have been robbed and cheated, will they put a priority on this case. Go to “The Answer” for more information.