Despite the fact the Pitts-Tucker & Co. advertises "the highest standards of excellence and integrity," he has supported and encouraged the ongoing scheme of one of the most successful con man ever known in the field of fake titles of nobility--Mr. Antony Boada. It is a sad tale of greed and avarice. This is directly against the ethical standards of the Law Society of England and Wales. Section 17.01 Fairness states:

Mrs. Christina Fletcher was a name used to test out and see if Pitts-Tucker & Co. would be honest and has the high ethical standards they advertise. She was a potential client of British Feudal Investments in her correspondence of August 1, 2002 and asked Jane Orrell, Esq. of Pitts-Tucker & Co. to tell her if anyone had ever complained about BFI and it’s titles, and how such people were treated. But instead of answering her honestly and ethically, she got a “Letter of Reference” that implied that everything was squeaky clean. (see enclosed letter of reference) When, in fact, people have complained and were treated very badly. I am one of them and so is J. C. Williams. (see the booklet entitled “Selling the Forbidden: Illegal Activities of Antonio A. Boada”)

I even sent them convincing evidence of fraud in 2001. (see “Exhibits for the Investigator’s Report”) Why then did they hide the truth from this person that people have complained about the noble titles, and that those who do complain are often ignored and/or threatened, or put off somehow? Because they are in on the deal. They are a party to this ugly trade in falsehoods. The truth would have effectively stopped this potential client from purchasing. Therefore they purposely warped the situation and lie to her.

We are in possession of a letter dated February 28, 2003 where Roger Pitts-Tucker despicably accuses and belittles one of Boada’s many victims for bringing up the idea that Boada is a homosexual, and then he does the same thing, that is, he hypocritically belittles this man calling him a homosexual or gay and telling him it is wrong to accuse. In other words, instead of helping the man obtain justice, Roger Pitts-Tucker would rather derail him and insult him. But, in this case, it is clearly a matter of hypocrisy, that is, “the kettle is calling the pot black.” In other words, he tells him how bad and wrong he is for calling Boada a gay, then he, himself, calls this man a gay. What kind of professionalism is that?

Pitts-Tucker also accuses this man of owning and operating a gay pornographic website, when, in fact, this is a totally false charge. This was proven by the fact that the registration and ownership information found on www.whois.org shows absolutely no connection to him. The idea that he owns and operates such is so remote and alien to this man. But what does this subject, that is, whether he is gay or not, or runs a porn shop or not, have anything to do with the merits of his case anyway? This is a diversionary trick. The fact is, Pitts-Tucker avoids the critical issues and makes everything murky and muddled diverting attention from the fact that this man has been robbed, cheated and defrauded by his client Antony Boada of British Feudal Investments, Ltd. This is not honest dealing.

Mr. Pitts-Tucker then tells this man, Leo, that because of the “Terms and Conditions of Sale” agreement posted on Boada’s old website and which is more prominent on the new one that was just dropped, he can never learn the truth about his title. Pitts-Tucker writes, “that the purchaser was to have satisfied himself before agreeing to the sale and was not entitled to raise requisitions after the sale.” That is, somehow this pre-sales agreement magically make it so that he is buying his title “as is,” and if he finds out later that it is a fake, well, tough luck, you agreed. How convenient! The perfect crime! He basically tells him he has no recourse.

But his claim is baseless since there was no sale contract at the time that either Leo or I purchased our fake or counterfeit titles. The web archives although presently blocked by Boada to hide the evidence against him, shows that as late as August 29, 2000, there was no published sales contract, terms or conditions or even an “Application For A Title Purchase,” which eventually contained such. (see: enclosed copy off of the web archives: web.archive.org/web/20001010035548/www.nobletitles.com/lists.htm) This is also true of the October 9, 2000 copy. (web.archive.org/web/20001010035548/http://www.nobletitles.com/lists.htm) This fact also confirms and verities my claim that there was absolutely no sales contract at the time of my purchase. (copies are enclosed)

I can personally verify that I know that there was absolutely no sales contract in the February or March 2000 period of time when I purchased the fake cuckoo title of Halberstadt. And Robert (name redacted), another one of Mr. Boada’s and Mr. Pitts-Tucker’s victims, provides another verification of the same. He wrote to me that he knows that there was no sales agreement on Boada’s website when I purchased--such an entity simply did not exist in February of 2000. And because there was no “terms and conditions” of sale or pre-sales agreement in that time frame, Mr. Smith required that Mr. Boada create a sale contract with him. (see enclosed letter from Mr. Smith)

When I raised the specter of fraud in August of 2000, in all the e-mails and letters from Pitts-Tucker & Co. defending his client and threatening me, etc. for the next eight months, neither Pitts-Tucker or Boada ever brought up or even suggest that a sales contract was involved. The reason for this is obvious. It was an after thought. Not until several years later was it alluded to. Then the contract they produced as proof was more than a year after my purchase–pretty pathetic of them (see enclosed copy of contract and note the date on it--October 17, 2001)

The problem is Pitts-Tucker hides reality and therefore blurs or clouds all issues. He doesn’t mention things like the “Unfair Contract Term Act 1977 (UCT)” and the “Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR)” of England and Wales. The 1977 Act specifies a list of terms that will be considered unfair – generally exclusion, limitation and indemnity clauses – and therefore these terms will not be binding. It is up to the defendant to prove his clauses are reasonable and fair, which is virtually impossible with fake, counterfeit titles.

But according to Pitts-Tucker, Leo should basically just lay down and die right now as far as ever thinking he can find justice. That is his message to this man as it was to me as well. But it is so very misleading. It is so far from the truth as to be criminal, that is, it is an act of malpractice or premeditated deception. Because whenever fraud occurs or criminal misrepresentations, a pre-sales agreement becomes mute and meaningless. But would this supreme court solicitor tell him he has rights and can require them to prove the title by law? No, of course not, he would rather deceive them into thinking their case is hopeless. But a solicitor is not supposed to lie or perpetrate deception. Well, that is the name of the game for Pitts-Tucker. He gladly leads people astray. Not very ethical, but typical of how he treats anyone who would find justice against his friend Antony Boada. This is professional misconduct and disgusting at that. But there is more–much more.

Mr. Pitts-Tucker’s argument about a sales agreement is senseless and without merit–it is a dead argument with no substantiation or intelligent support. It is like beating a dead horse. But so are most of his arguments. It doesn’t keep him from using them, but he makes himself look foolish or incompetent, which only helps me and the cause of justice.

After this attack over an irrelevant sale contract, Mr. Pitts-Tucker then threatens Leo of “rumor-mongering,” when he shares his story, but fails to specify how, when, and to whom. He is simply using this as a “scare tactic”–telling him that any court would consider that what he is doing is “malicious” or an act of “libel.” But there are no details. No specifics. And the law honors a person’s right to investigate and question things. And freedom of speech allows him the right to tell the truth.

Now for the grand finale, Mr. Pitts-Tucker then used a subtle, but obvious form of blackmail. Instead of helping or explaining anything, Mr. Pitts-Tucker shamelessly writes, “From what our client [Mr. Boada] tells us about you, any publicity in any court case in any competent jurisdiction would be to your disadvantage and we therefore suggest that you offer voluntarily to desist from publishing any further libels or slanders about our client.” In other words, don’t you dare go against my client in any way or we will be sure to humiliate and grind you down and make you feel so bad that you will regret it, so you can just forget that we took you for over $80,000.00. Hardened, unfeeling, cruel people operate this way. Mr. Pitts-Tucker's behavior is repugnant and revolting.

I was also accused by them of giving them “continual threats,” yet immediately before this on February 28, 2001, I wrote, “Surely, by now, it has been amply demonstrated that I want a reasonable solution that is fair and protects everyone involved, and yet could provide hard evidence that the title is not a fake.” All I ever wanted is what I was legally entitled to, and that is proof that the title was authentically from the original owners–the Imperial and Royal House of Prussia as claimed. In other words, I wanted to know that I was not defrauded. I had requested and pleaded with them for this information. But all I got was the run around and threatened. Not very good customer service. Really it was a corrupt and intimidating trick to shut me up.

Mr. Pitts-Tucker also goes overboard or totally illogical to others as well. He wrote a letter to the Law Society stating that because Mr. Boada and Mr. Williams are alleged in the Investigator’s Report to be a homosexual couple that the whole report should be considered as “suspect and not to be regarded as authoritative.” He calls the whole complete report “dubious to say the least,” and “I do not regard it as impartial or professional in any way,” but fails to explain why or provide any intelligent or sensible basis for such, except the alleged homosexual problem. This reminds me of the saying, about “throwing the baby out with the bath water.” If one percent of the report were a mistake, is the whole report bogus and of no significance as he would have you believe? What about the other 99%, is it rubbish on that basis alone? That is not rational and reasonable. It is nonsense. It is a biased and bigoted remark–actually a “wild assertion” to use Mr. Boada's words. This kind of thinking and writing is more age appropriate to a troubled adolescent. Not something that should come from a highly respected solicitor of England.

Should an ethical solicitor be truthful or say one thing to one person and then something totally opposite and contradictory to another? On August 2, 2000, Pitts-Tucker & Co. stated to a Mr. Smith, “The address of British Feudal Investments appears as their USA address [which was in Florida]. Then on April 27, 2001 he wrote to me that “the vendors [BFI] are not located in the State,” that is the State of Florida. Notice the obvious contradiction. The reason for the disparity is to Mr. Smith, Pitts-Tucker explained that BFI should not have to register in England because it did business in Florida. To me, Pitts-Tucker was explaining that BFI should not have to register in Florida because they are not located in Florida, even though Boada claimed both a London and Palm Beach, FL. office on the internet. But the law in both countries requires that even if you have a branch office, you must register. This kind of weaseling around does not reflect high ethical standards. It is the kind of behavior expected of a disreputable lawyer, not a high solicitor of England.

To demonstrate a pattern of flagrant disregard for truth, note that on April 27, 2001, Pitts-Tucker & Co. wrote to me, “Our clients have repeatedly and on numerous occasions tried to satisfy your demands for additional information.” They even went so far as to say, “Our clients have attempted to meet your every demand. . . .” This is amazing and astounding since every demand I have made for six months prior to this was categorically denied. For example, on Mr. Boada’s website he advertised that “certificates of insurability are supplied on request on any title we sell.” I first requested this in August of 2000. Then again on 8/26/00 and 9/20/00. On 9/21/00, Mr. Boada stated that he was trying to send me copies of the insurance companies certificates and licenses to do business. He never sent me there documents despite frequent requests, even pleading, on 9/26/00, 10/11/00, 10/17/00, 10/22/00, 10/24/00, 10/26/00, 11/04/00, 11/07/00, and 11/08/00. I’m persistent, but I got the message that he was not going to fulfill his advertised promise or honor his word. Yet with the above in mind, Pitts-Tucker actually wrote that our clients have “on numerous occasions tried to satisfy your demands. . . ,” even “every demand,” yet there is the statement that “certificates of insurability are supplied on request . . . ,” and this was never complied with. In other words, to be blunt, Pitts-Tucker & Co. do not seem to care a wick about the truth or what is right.

On page 49 of Mr. Boada’s book Instant Aristocracy: How To Make It Into the Titled Aristocratic and Royal Ranks NOW! (Eden Press, 1999), Mr. Boada explained that “holders of Patriarchal titles registered in Spain got probably the single most coveted item on the list: entry into the official ‘Who’s Who’ of titled Spanish Nobility.” Since I was obtaining a Spanish Patriarchal title of knight, I requested this of Mr. Boada. He stated on 4/08/00 that it looks like “I can get you included in the Spanish ‘Who’s Who’ for no cost.” I reminded him of this when I sent in the two checks totaling $7,320.00. On 6/15/00, he wrote me that he would “try to contact my [his] old connections at the Spanish ‘Who’s Who’ and get you included.” After August of 2000 when I realized I had been deceived and defrauded, I reminded him of this again. I also requested it on 9/18/00, 12/20/00 and on 2/08/01. He never came through. He couldn’t come through, because the title was a fake and he knew it. But the point is, Pitts-Tucker, who received copies of all these many e-mails and numerous requests, knew that Boada had not satisfied my demands. So why would he say that Mr. Boada had satisfied them? Is this honest or ethical? Or, should a high solicitor of England tell the truth?

I’m so amazed at the gall of these people to again say to me on 2/06/01 that Mr. Boada “has more than complied with your demands.” If so, were are the certificates, licenses, etc. for the British Dominion Guarantee Insurance Company, among other things? But the most important of all, where is the proof that a legitimate transaction took place between myself and the Imperial Hohenzollern Family of Germany–the Imperial and Royal House of Prussia. Practically every e-mail was a plea for verifiable evidence to authenticate or substantiate this. And yet on 3/07/01, Pitts-Tucker & Co. wrote, “. . . all matters have been carried out in the proper manner.” If this was true, why did they disobey the Law of Property Act 1969 and leave me empty handed with no proof that they really owned the title in the first place or had a proven right to sell it? They broke this law. How could this be considered proper in any way?

On 2/06/01, Pitts-Tucker wrote, “We suggest you comply with this request [to show evidence that Peter Michael Hohenzollern-Saxe-Weimer-Civitella-Cessi-Lambrino was not a real person] so that we may reach a sensible and early conclusion to this matter.” On 2/08/01, I complied and sent them by fax. I also included contact information so it could be verified as authentic. They were acknowledge shortly afterwards. Yet on 3/12/01, Pitts-Tucker wrote, “Thus far, our client has attempted to resolve the matter with you and, in the circumstances, feels there is nothing further he can add.” Note that I complied so we could “reach a sensible and early conclusion to this matter,” and then Pitts-Tucker says his client has attempted to resolve the matter. What did he do? Nothing! What demands has he satisfied? Not a single one! Nothing had changed since I first made the reasonable request for proof in August of 2000, except I received a statutory declaration certified by a man that experts (including some prestigious royal genealogy societies) say does not even exist or is using a false, nonsensical name.

So clearly, British Feudal Investments is not responding to the facts or to the real situation. They do only what they know to do. That is, avoid like the plague the idea of having to prove anything they do is above board and honorable, real or in any way honest. This is their trademark. It is their distinguishing quality or feature in this disgusting business with Antony Boada. You can take this to the bank. Sadly, the odds are probably about 90 to10 that they will never obey the law (the Law of Property Act 1969) that requires they prove the titles of nobiltiy are valid unless their feet are held to the fire.

The point is, if British Feudal Investments, Ltd. uses the title of “Limited,” which they do, and claims an address and actually claims to do business in England, which they do, they must register with Companies House, even if it’s just a branch office that they operate in London. That is the law. But despite several complaints to Pitts-Tucker & Co. about this flagrant illegality, Pitts-Tucker turns a deaf ear to it. He doesn’t seem to care about the law of the land and that BFI, his client, was operating illegally in England for all these years. This should be a red flag to any thinking person that something is seriously wrong. (Companies House has a website and e-mail address is: enquires@compainies-house.gov.uk)

So how am I to judge a solicitor who doesn't play by the rules--one who would threaten and intimidate Boada's victims and use underhanded methods, that is, politically attempt to push people around rather than allow them to complete their investigation of him without interference. (see section entitled "News" about this man's political bullying)

And do you think it appropriate for a high solicitor of England to promise something and then renege, back out or default on his or her word? Yet on September 29, 2000, one victim was promised by Pitts-Tucker & Co. that Mr. Boada would send the documents that would prove his title was valid and legitimate, which was his sole request for several months. But this promise was never fulfilled. He was left empty handed and without a leg to stand on to this day. These are not very nice people.

Is it also appropriate and ethical for Roger Pitts-Tucker to allow his good name, status and his high reputation to be used over and over again to convince people that everything is above board, proper and right with Mr. Boada, who is a known fraud. Yet for years, Boada bragged and boasted of this connection to trick people into thinking he was as honesty as the day is long. No wonder, he published it three times on his old website to bolster his filthy business practices in fraud and deceit. It was a good selling point. The problem was Pitts-Tucker was overly involved to the point of being an accomplice in Boada’s less than honorable business. And any one of these things should cause shudders through any fair minded person who loves what is good and wholesome in this world.

. . . Unlike in America the word of a British solicitor, especially of the stature and importance of Pitts-Tucker & Co. means a great deal and is not to be dismissed lightly. In America you can get your attorney to back you up no matter what kind of business you're running as long as you pay him. In Britain, solicitors of a stature of Pitts-Tucker & Co. would never become involved with any kind of company or individuals who are not absolutely above board. Thus the very fact that we do business with them is to us an honor and tribute.

Oh how I wish Pitts-Tucker was the angel Boada describes all British solicitors to be. Certainly there would not have to be such a large organization within the Law Society to deal with so many complaints against them. I also wish so badly that Pitts-Tucker "would never become involved with any kind of company or individuals who are not absolutely above board." If this were true, this whole website on the criminal misrepresentations of his client Antony Boada--his despicable deceptions, scams, the proof of fraud, fake noble titles, a section on his accomplice, this chapter on a very crooked and corrupt solicitor and a challenge to them to do the honorable thing as well as the recent involvement of the FBI would be totally unnecessary. And I would probably have never been a victim.

I personally just cannot imagine that the Law Society of England and Wales could support or give comfort to Mr. Boada and Mr. Roger Pitts-Tucker for basically giving so many people the finger or saying in effect, “tough luck, or hard cheese, so what you have an unsupportable title that cannot be authenticated and therefore has no legitimate or solid foundation to stand on. We’ve got our money and we don’t care if you have nothing but a worthless piece of paper that has no meaning or merit to it. We don’t care if you would be laughed at and held in derision if you used the title. So you have nothing. As long as we have our money, the heck with you.” In other words, their lack of compassion for their victim’s plight is legendary.

Mr. Pitts-Tucker’s despicable part in this whole ugly affair of selling fake and phoney noble titles, that is, his guilt comes from the fact that he could have withdrawn from doing business with Mr. Boada at any time. In other words, despite hard evidence that Mr. Boada is a fraud, Mr. Roger Pitts-Tucker knowingly continued to promote and encourage and perpetuate Boada’s foul and ugly business practices. An honest man would not do this. An honorable man would get out of it as soon as possible. And if he were really honest and not an integral part of the scam, he would blow the whistle on such a reprobate human being. But Pitts-Tucker is not forthcoming. He is defensive and argumentative.

And by Mr. Pitts-Tucker’s own self-proclaimed standard, he is also guilty of heavy ethical and moral violations. For he stated on April 27, 2001 in a letter to one of Boada’s victims, “You should be aware in England that a solicitor, or other legal representative has a personal duty to satisfy himself as to the facts and circumstances supporting an allegation of fraud.” But to all the evidence that Mr. Boada is a liar and con artist who rips-off people like a common thief, he turned a deaf ear. His company acknowledged receiving the information, but then acted as though nothing ever happened--that hard evidence of fraud didn't matter in the least. He just doesn’t have the high standards to care.

If he truly did what is ethical and right as described above, he could not have failed to notice, a major deception on the part of his corrupt client, Mr. Antony Boada. For Mr. Pitts-Tucker explained to me in two separate letters one on February 6, 2000 and one on April 27, 2001 that he examined the certificates, etc. of this phoney company called the Trade Consult Group, Ltd. Boada claimed that this company sold me the title on January 14, 2000 in the first and second Statutory Declarations, which was before the company was even created or came into existence. It was started more than a month later on February 21, 2000 in the Republic of Seychelles. This fact alone ought to have raised the eyebrows of any honest man. But the problem is even worse as Boada never had anything to do with this company until nine months later. That is, he bought it nine months after selling me the title. It was a “shelf company”– a ready made, already legally established corporation formed in the Republic of Seychelles on February 21, 2000 that was put on a shelf, unused, like merchandise in a store just waiting for the right customer to come along and buy it. Boada bought this company in late October of 2000 or early November of 2000 and declared, under oath, in the third Statutory Declaration that this company, that he did not own until nine months later, was the very company that originally sold me the title back in January. What a colossal lie! What an ugly, cruel scheme! But the point is, Pitts-Tucker probably knew about this criminal deception, but just went along with it. Therefore, he is an accessory to it along with a number of other atrocities he knew Boada was perpetrating on innocent people.

But sadly, Roger Pitts-Tucker shows total disregard for the law he is supposed to uphold. Another blatant example of wilful disobedience and thievery is as follows. According to the “Tenures Abolition Act 1660" concerning English Baronies, Tenure/Feudal Peerages in England ceased to exist. And upon the abolition of feudal tenure by an act of the Irish Parliament in 1662, such ceased to exist in Ireland as well. And there is a clear indication of case law to support these acts. Yet Mr. Roger Pitts-Tucker, solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, was regularly involved in the illegal sale of English and Irish baronies. And as such, he is guilty. (see "Selling the Forbidden")

Does it seem appropriate or professional to you for a highly respected solicitor of England to be presented with evidence of fraud and to turn a deaf ear to it, in effect, saying loud and clear, "it doesn’t matter that my client has committed a fraud, I don’t care, I’m not responsible, I'm not impressed, frankly, I just don't give a damn, I just notarize Mr. Boada, the con man’s signature--if he hurts people or robs them blind, so what?" But what should be expected of a high officer of the court, even a high officer of the supreme court of all England? Is this to be permitted? Pitts-Tucker just looks the other way while his client robs people. Is this right? No, not to any intelligent and upright mind.

But Pitts-Tucker basically describes his role in his letter to the Law Society on March 14, 2003 as follows, “I . . . fail to see how any duty arises for me to examine . . .” and “I believe I have no duty . . . ,” yet he, in the quote above, states that it is the duty of a solicitor to examine all the evidence alleging fraud. He continued, “my firm was involved as ‘amanuensis’ for BFI in replying to" this particular client. “Amanuensis” means like a secretary. Then he said, “The contents of the replies were made after instructions from my client.” In other words, “I am an unthinking robot or a brainless puppet in this case. How can anyone think I could possibly be guilty?” In other words, he is trying to play the innocent bystander game. I believe this is idiotic nonsense straight from hell.

There is no way I can accept the crazy idea that Mr. Pitts-Tucker’s head was in the sand about all of the facts and evidence presented to him, or that his head was in the clouds or that he personally lives in looney land or has lost his marbles. He is not senile. The real answer is, he is corrupt. He knew very well what was going on and yet chose to continue to support Boada in his criminal activities. Should he not be held liable and accountable for such gross ethical and criminal impropriety? Ignorance is no excuse, and certainly a supreme court solicitor should not be ignorant or deaf to such serious allegations. Again, Pitts-Tucker knows full well what he is doing. It looks like greed and corruption got in his way and he fell for it.

The innocent bystander ruse Mr. Pitts-Tucker tried to portray to the Law Society or innocent secretary type of solicitor just stamping legal papers as a maneuver to proclaim his innocence just doesn’t fly, or work in the face of all the solid evidence of fraud which the Law Society knows I have sent to him. Roger Pitts-Tucker is blameworthy and should be ashamed of himself.

If the title was valid, and an authentic transfer was actually accomplished between the parties involved, this could easily be proved. Why then did Roger Pitts-Tucker & Co. basically give me the finger and leave me empty handed when, if they were honest and upright men, they could have readily done what is morally and ethically right instead of dragging this out for over four years?

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.