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.

The following is an analogy. I am asking you to put yourself into my situation in the hope that you might have some empathy and therefore do what is honest, honorable and right about your firm's September 20, 2000 “undertaking.” Carefully ponder and think about the following:

What if you bought a house and the seller or his representative refused to provide “good title” and hide encumberances from you that he knew about? However, you had the promise from his solicitor that the “documents” that proved that the owners who reportedly sold the house actually did sell the house fair and square as an assurance?

But what if you could not really move into the house, because the owners, who supposedly sold it, declared that they never sold it?

In addition, what if that solicitor failed to provide the promised “documents” even though you made numerous requests and pleadings for the “documents;” and, after all that, he turned a deaf ear to you? And even worse, you warned him and the seller over and over that you would be financially crippled if they did not fulfill their obligations? Yet neither of them were willing to lift a finger to help you, but were satisfied to let you go down the drain to financial ruin.

Then after you suffered an irreversible financial disaster because of them, you discovered that the solicitor's promise was an unequivocal “undertaking” that he was obligated or bound by the standards of his profession to fulfill? You informed him of this, yet he continued to ignore your appropriate and just requests.

Think about it. How would you feel about a solicitor who had ignored you for almost nine years? Especially in light of the fact that you had paid for the house and never got to enjoy it or ever really own what you paid for? Does that seem wrong? Or, does this seem right to you?

Now, think about the idea that if this solicitor now, at this very time (even though it is nine years late) did actually fulfill his obligations and did truthfully and honorably do his full and complete duty, as promised in his binding “undertaking” to you, it not only could, but would get you out the financial hole he put you, wouldn't you do whatever you could to pressure him into doing what is right? In other words, I need your help?

And I want you to do what is right before the Law Society requests you to. Otherwise, you are guilty of misconduct so far below the standard of your profession that you will deserve to be struck off the list of practicing solicitors. Why? Because you would apparently be glad or indifferent to the fact that you further damaged the life of another human being.

No profession will tolerate such heartless and irresponsible behavior unbecoming the high status of one who was supposed to be true to what is just and right, fair, honest and true.

If you fail to show that the heirs or owners of the family patrimony of the Imperial and Royal House of Prussia, which the transfer documents declare sold all the “de jure” rights (under international law) to the feudal principality of Halberstadt to me via the English law of real property as declared in the documents, then you deserve whatever is coming to you for you will have committed a very serious breach of honor.

No one in their right mind would put everything they value at risk just to be stubborn or because my rightful requests were bothersome to them. It doesn't take a superior IQ to figure that out. So why haven't you fulfilled the requirements of the “undertaking?”

The argument of a covenant of secrecy doesn't hold water when I gave you myriads of alternative ways none of which you fulfilled so they could be verified and confirmed as requested and required. And any argument that you did fulfill your “undertaking” has no basis in fact as the “documents” of proof were not provided, which you most certainly know to be the case. If they were, I certainly would not be making this request of you.

I had asked for irrefutable evidence that was confirmable and verifiable. And the “undertaking” declared that they were being photocopied and made ready and they “will be sent to you shortly” and “you should be receiving the documents in question shortly” and “I can as their lawyer . . . reiterate that the requested information [the verifiable proof that the Imperial family sold me the Principality] will be forthcoming at the very earliest date as promised by BFI.” (September 9, 2000)

I still need this information to recover from your failure to do your duty. I am relying on you to do the honorable thing. It is believed that under the pressure of the Law Society, you will come through if not before --- as one would have to be extremely mentally defective to do otherwise. Of course, there are people who would flush money down the toilet, but I do not believe you are mentally challenged.

Again, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it would be extremely bright and intelligent to come through with the proof before you are confronted by the Law Society. Otherwise, your misconduct, your willful malpractice or substandard performance will bring you more trouble or unnecessary harm. This whole case is very black and white --- either you do your duty or you fail. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

If you decide not to fulfill your binding promise or “undertaking” when requested to do so by the Law Society, then the only logical alternative is that you cannot or will not. And if you cannot or will not, then obviously with your near confession of fraud in your March and September 2003 letters to the Law Society, will make it unmistakable that you are actually guilty of much more than misconduct, but fraud as an accessory or as an accomplice. Why, because you more than hinted that you knew there was impropriety going on from the very onset.

In other words, if you do not take responsibility and do what is clearly right in this situation, then it will become crystal clear that the City of placeCityLondon fraud investigation unit needs to become involved.

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 hereby again invite and request that you do what is honorable and sensible in this situation. That is, fulfill your firm's “undertaking.”

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.