Crooked Solicitor19

<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="1d0fd5a3.jpg"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>Phoney Titles of Nobility: British Feudal Investments, Ltd. Exposed</B></FONT><B>    </B><B> |     </B><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Phoney Titles of Nobility: British Feuda"><U><B>home</B></U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000" background="1d1d2b03.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> <I>Crooked Solicitor19</I></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>   |   <A HREF="id76.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor 17"><U>Crooked Solicitor 17</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id77.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor18"><U>Crooked Solicitor18</U></A>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor19</B>   |   <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="id81.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Open Defiance of Undertaking 1"><U>Open Defiance of Undertaking 1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id82.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Open Defiance of Undertaking 2"><U>Open Defiance of Undertaking 2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id83.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Open Defiance of Undertaking 3"><U>Open Defiance of Undertaking 3</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id85.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Findings and Appeal"><U>Findings and Appeal</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id86.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Open Defiance of Undertaking 4"><U>Open Defiance of Undertaking 4</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id87.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Open Defiance of Undertaking 5"><U>Open Defiance of Undertaking 5</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>Bring Mr. Boada to justice and spare yourself a lot of problems</B></div> <bR> <div> 10/22/08</div> <bR> <div> Dear Mr. Pitts-Tucker,</div> <bR> <div> I have written a lot of letters to you. The Guidelines of your profession state that even if you have no third party responsibility, you should have the common decency or professional courtesy to respond to them. Again, you have not replied to any of my letters for at least 5 years. We probably could have worked something out, but you didn't seem to want to. Hence, things just got worse and worse until you will have to go before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.</div> <bR> <div> Because of your unintended confession, the fact that you did not fulfill your “<B>undertaking</B>” to me, because of your obligation as the advertized <B>conveyancing solicitor,</B> and your failure to check out the compelling evidence of fraud on the part of your client, you are not innocent. You are probably guilty of the loathsome crime of fraud either as an accomplice or as the master mind of the scam. </div> <bR> <div> First of all, consider your complete washout as far as doing your obligated duty toward me. You passed all of the following legal tests for establishing a breach or complete disregard of a “<B>duty of care:</B>”</div> <bR> <div> <B>1. “The act or omission was negligent” [</B>failure to provide “<B>good title</B>” and failure to fulfill your “<B>undertaking</B>” was negligent and represented a derelict of your duties---lacking in due care and concern<B>]; </B></div> <div> <B>2. “The act or omission was voluntary” [</B>your confession shows you knew what was going on---thirty years of experience proves you knew better or should have known better than to have done what you did<B>]; </B></div> <div> <B>3. “The act or omission must have as its foreseeable and natural consequence harm to another individual” [</B>I told you my ship was sinking, my financial house was burning and that financial disaster was inevitable unless you fulfilled your promise<B>].</B></div> <div> <B>“Assessing the [severity of the] breach involves the use of the `reasonable man test' in which the Court assesses if a duty of care is owed by one individual to another [</B>like you owed me the fulfillment of an `<B>undertaking</B>' in which I relied and still rely<B>], whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable on the facts and circumstances of the case in question [</B>I told you what was going to happen over and over again<B>] and the actual harm . . .  occurred [</B>that is, I suffered a bankrupcy as a direct result of your total disregard, in addition, I could not and still cannot establish the business I prepared for and needed to financially thrive in life, but you were careless, indifferent and inconsiderate---worst of all you were unprofessional and substandard. You didn't even lift your little finger like a responsible, reasonable and prudent solicitor would. All you could do is cry “<B>caveat emptor</B>” and threaten me<B>]. </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/pdfs/dutyofcare.pdf)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/pdfs/dutyofca"><U><B><U>www.jisclegal.ac.uk/pdfs/dutyofcare.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Dr. McInnis, a solicitor, legal author, and scholar, declared:</div> <bR> <div> <B>The standard of care owed by a solicitor to his or her client [or to a third party to which he owes a duty of care because of an undertaking] is the skill and care expected of a qualified and reasonably competent solicitor in the exercise of his or her profession.</B> (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_practice/PP%20-%20Handout%20C.ppt#323,71,Solicitor" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_"><U><B><U>http://law.hku.hk/teaching/professional_practice/PP%20-%20Handout%20C</U></B></U></A><B><U>.ppt#323,71,Solicitor Client Relationships</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Obviously, you need to change how you treat people. You need to change how you have treated me over the years. The Law Society will be looking at your behavior to see if you will live up to the standards of your profession or if you will continue to prove yourself unworthy of the high status, respect and honor due a solicitor of England and Wales.</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >R</FONT>emember “s<B>olicitors 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 relied on your firm's word. For 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" ><A HREF="http://www.inzo.com/selling/jargon.php" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.inzo.com/selling/jargon.php"><U><B><U>www.inzo.com/selling/jargon.php</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> I am asking that you fulfill your "<B>personal legal guarantee.</B>" It is your obligated duty to do so. </div> <bR> <div> In a Court of Appeals, <B>Ellis v. CityRogers, April 25, 26, May 3, 1884, Cotton, Bowen and Fry, L.JJ</B>, it states that it is “<B>. . . the general rule that a purchaser is entitled to require a good title. . . ,</B>” even a<B> </B>“<B>. . . </B><I><B>primâ facie</B></I><B> a right to a good title. . . .</B>”  Seeing I had this right and requested it over and over again, but never received it, why, then, did you write, knowing I was never given good title, why on <B>February 6, 2001</B> did you write that Mr. Boada<B> “has more than complied with your demands.</B>”<B> </B>Why, if this was my right, did you write to me on <B>March 7, 2001 </B>that <B>“. . . all matters have been carried out in the proper manner</B>” when I did not get "<B>good title.</B>" Wasn't that my legal right? Remember there were no "<B>terms and conditions</B>" when I purchased. The Law Society has the proof of this. But rather than giving me <B>good title</B>, I got a <B>bad title</B>, which is the same thing as having no title or right of possession. Yet, “<B>Every vendor </B><B><U>must</U></B><B> necessarily be bound to </B><B><U>furnish</U></B><B> the purchaser with the means of asserting his titles and defending his possession.</B>” Theodore B. F. Ruoff, “The Protection of the Purchaser of Land under English Law,” <I>Modern Law Review</I>, Vol 32, No. 2, March 1969, p. 132. How then, could you say, "<B>all matters have been carried out in the proper manner</B>?" This is sheer poppycock.</div> <bR> <div> What you did to me was a disgrace as you ruined me by your lack of professionalism or even worse, your lack of common decency or inner sense of humanity.</div> <bR> <div> Your client did not comply with my demands to show <B>good title. </B>You know that, nor were the really important matters carried out in a proper manner. Nothing was right about this transaction if the owners were not involved. And no reasonable solicitor would do such things or allow such a travesty of justice to occur.</div> <bR> <div> In <B>Privy Council Appeal No. 36 of 2001</B>, the Lords reflecting over a century of law and legal decision declared that providing proof of ownership is an "<B>obligation imposed by law on the vendor</B>." If so, why didn't you insist that Mr. Boada obey the law, rather than tell me "<B>caveat emptor</B>?" The men just quoted made it eminently clear that, it is:</div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . the obligation of a vendor under an open contract </B><B><U>[</U></B><B>such as mine, because an implied or oral contract is by definition an 'open contract' and in such a case the obligation] is to make a good and marketable title to the property sold and to deliver an abstract of his title to the purchaser within a reasonable time. . . .</B> </div> <bR> <div> Being a solicitor for over 30 years and being involved in the practice of conveying real estate and declaring yourself an expert in the “<B>sale and purchase of feudal titles,</B>” you knew about this obligation like the palm of your hand. And if you didn't know about it, you should not be practicing law. The point here is, Why did you not obey the law? Why? I can only guess that you were overly involved in the scam, or you would have insisted that your client provide the requested proof that you also promised in your "<B>undertaking</B>" to me. But instead of honoring the law and its intent to protect the buyer, you threatened me and basically gave me the finger with your, "<B>caveat emptor</B>" excuse. This is not the way a solicitor of England should behave. You don't seem to care what the law is or how people are impacted by your indifferent and reckless manners or you would have asked me how things might be rectified instead of being silent for over five years as I suffered financial ruin. </div> <div>  </div> <div> John Jackson, a lay member of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, wrote:</div> <bR> <div> <B>When people consult solicitors they are sometimes [very] vulnerable [I certainly was---I trusted you thoroughly]. . . . The advice they get and the way in which it is communicated can make a big difference to their lives [it certainly damaged my life big time]. Consequently, it is important that the public should be [protected from scoundrels like you, Mr. Pitts-Tucker, when they should be] able to respect a solicitor's expertise, to trust a solicitor's judgement and be entirely confident in a solicitor's honesty. The Tribunal's function is to uphold these principles. . . .</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/annual_report_2005.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/ann"><U><B><U>www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/annual_report_2005.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Remember, you were the <B>seller's solicitor</B>, not his secretary. You were the one your client advertized for years on his website as the one who did "<B>all</B>" the "<B>conveyances,</B>" and you admitted in your <B>September 29, 2003 </B>letter to the Law Society that you looked at his website and changed some things in regard to yourself, but the point is, you never changed this extremely important statement. This part remained the same, that is, that you, yourself, did "<B>all</B>" the <B>"conveyances.</B>" And you admitted in your letter that Mr. Boada did all his "<B>business . . . through [your] firm. . . .</B>" You are therefore responsible and legally accountable for the legal advice you gave or failed to give him.</div> <bR> <div> Mr. Boada's website on <B>April 8, 2000,</B> which, by the way, had no sales agreement or <B>terms and conditions</B> section, (the Law Society has a copy of this particular archive copy of Mr. Boada's website) stated under the subtitle of “<B>Our Firm:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Our attorneys are Solicitors to the Supreme Court of England and Wales and as such are licensed and insured by the Law Society of England, (the equivalent of the American Bar Association), the Principal solicitor is The Hon. R.A. Pitts-Tucker, Esq. who also holds the position of Agent to Her Majesty's Privy Council and is also Her Majesty's Clerk of the Green Cloth for Ireland, a historic position. </B>(The Law Society has a copy of this archive version)</div> <bR> <div> Some obvious mistakes are<B> </B>the Law Society does not <B>insure</B>, Mr. Pitts-Tucker does not qualify for the title of “<B>The Hon.</B>,” and I don't think he'd wants people to think of him as “<B>Her Majesty's Clerk of the Green Cloth of Ireland</B>” when the title doesn't even exist.<B> </B>It was pure imaginary Boada rubbish.</div> <bR> <div> The changed version read under the subtitle of “<B>Our Firm</B>”<B> </B>reads:</div> <bR> <div> <B>We retain in the country-regionUK Solicitors to the Supreme Court of country-regionEngland and country-regionWales and as such are licensed and insured by the Law Society of England, (the equivalent of the American Bar Association). Their principal is Mr. R.A. Pitts-Tucker and the firm is registered as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council Agents. </B>(See the booklet entitled, “<B>Antonio A. Boada's Website for British Feudal Investments, Ltd.</B>”)</div> <bR> <div> Obviously, the inappropriate title of “<B>The Hon.</B>”<B> </B>and the nonexistent title of “<B>Her Majesty's Clerk of the Green Cloth of Ireland</B>” were removed. But you did not delete or eliminate, “<B>All such conveyances are done by our . . . Solicitors. . . ,</B>” that is, by “<B>Mr. R.A. Pitts-Tucker</B>.” This was included in the <B>2001</B> and <B>2003</B> copies or versions of Mr. Boada's website which can be seen in the booklet entitled, “<B>Antonio A. Boada's Website for British Feudal Investments, Ltd</B>” taken directly off the internet)</div> <bR> <div> Being Mr. Boada's or BFI, Ltd.'s solicitor, the one who did "<B>all</B>" the "<B>conveyances,</B>" note the following declaration of Judge Lightman. <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >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, referring to years and years of common law and legal precedence, declared unequivocally what the solicitor's duty and obligation is in the sale of real property, which would include "<B>incorporeal hereditaments</B>" or intangible property rights.</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>He [the seller's solicitor---you in this case] 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> Why didn't you do this? I have suffered and still suffer from your lack of good character. So much of what you did is incriminating, unbefitting and below the standards of your profession. And being an experienced solicitor for over thirty years, you obviously “<B>knew, or more importantly, you ought to have known</B>” better. I do not understand you, unless, as your inadvertent confession proves, that is, that you knew from the very beginning that an ugly and malicious misrepresentation of the facts was taking place, such that, you showed your willful and knowledgeable involvement in this crime. This is the only explanation that makes sense to me. Now,</div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . the essential issue [</B>in society<B>]. . . is the need to maintain among members of the public a well-founded confidence that any solicitor [</B>you are included in this<B>] whom they instruct [</B>or use<B>] will be a person of unquestionable integrity, probity and trustworthiness. [</B>That was your duty. You advertised “<B>the highest standards of excellence and integrity.</B>” But what did you really do? You knowingly aided and abetted a known con artist. Conclusion:]<B> The reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member.</B> (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.cpso.on.ca/Info_Public/Dis_sum/WEBDISC/2002/MooreM.pdf</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> I know you are not innocent. And you know you are not innocent, but I realize that you may have been deceived to some degree by Mr. Boada who may have conned you as well as he did me and many others. But if you really fell for his scam, wouldn't it be a good idea to go after the man who betrayed you, who wronged you, who got you into this horrible mess---the man who destroyed your livelihood, your retirement, everything you've worked for all your life? Shouldn't you provide evidence of fraud, now, so that he can be put into prison for destroying you and ruining and/or ripping off many innocent, unsuspecting people all over the earth?</div> <div>  </div> <div> It is not reasonable, to me, for you to defend Mr. Boada---defending a con artist only puts yourself more fully, more completely, more absolutely into the category of being his partner, an accomplice and an accessory, who aided and abetted his crimes. To defend him would be to suggests that you feel he had a perfect right to commit crime, which would make you unfit to be a solicitor. </div> <bR> <div> On the other hand, to turn him in, would not only be the right thing to do, but could, I believe, provide an important mitigating claim on your case and could make a major difference in the outcome. </div> <bR> <div> It makes good sense to do this, because so much of your excuses are as blatantly lame and weak---they are too flimsy to hold up under any kind of public or private scrutiny especially in a tribunal of experienced professionals who can see right through any façade or mirage you attempt to place before them. In other words, an unsubstantiated defense based on nonsense and other questionable, suspicious and anemic evidence is obviously absurd and truly foolhardy. It will be an expose and you will end up having egg all over your face</div> <bR> <div> You would do so much better to just tell the truth and to do what is honorable, honest and truthful. To make a big example of the despicable Mr. Boada would help you, and it might help stop the wrongs that are being perpetuated all over earth by over 50 English title of nobility and phoney knighthood scams that are so prevalent in the British Isles. There were only about 5 or 6 such groups in 2001, since then it has mushroomed into a thriving and despicable business of lies and deceitfulness.</div> <bR> <div> Yes, if you could prove, that is, provide verifiable documents, that show that all the feudal property rights to the Principality of Halberstadt that I bought through Mr. Boada, represented a legitimate conveyance between the true owners (the heirs to the Imperial German House of Hohenzollern) and myself, that would be the best defense you could ever present. It would fulfill your obligations to me, though awfully late, but at least, it would still be the right thing to do.   </div> <bR> <div> And such proof would amply defend you from the charge of being an accomplice or the master mind of the scam, because if you knew all along it was actually valid, not a sham or a big lie, but a genuine and authentic conveyance, then that would explain your deaf ear to the compelling evidence of fraud that I sent you along with the contact information to confirm its authenticity.<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#444444" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <bR> <div> It would also eliminate the charge of giving a misleading <B>Letter of Reference</B> that described British Feudal Investments, Ltd. as being squeaky clean, when you knew very well that compelling evidence of fraud and serious complaints were presented to you against Mr. Boada. </div> <bR> <div> The Guidelines of your profession in <B>17.01(5) </B>on Third Parties says, “<B>When giving a reference as to character and financial standing, a solicitor must take care to give one that is true. A solicitor may be guilty of unbefitting conduct and may incur a liability where a false or misleading reference is given.</B>”</div> <bR> <div> Yet the <B>Letter of Reference</B> sent to a real address in the State of Virginia, to an apparently real person, Christina Fletcher, in late <B>July of 2002 </B>by Jane Orrell, Esq. of Pitts-Tucker & Co. declared nothing, but good about Mr. Boada and his company. There was no mention that serious complaints and allegations had been offered, nothing that would suggests there might be the slightest inkling of a problem was given in that letter. But this was done in opposition to the fact that the emails from this, apparently real person, Christina Fletcher, asked Ms. Orrell, if anyone had ever made a complaint about British Feudal Investments, Ltd. or questioned the validity of any of the feudal property sold, and if such did take place, how BFI, Ltd. responded to such complaints. </div> <bR> <div> This kind of <B>Letter of Reference</B> would have been okay if you had actual proof that the feudal property rights, the “<B>incorporeal hereditament,</B>” sold to me represented an authentic and legally binding sale between two parties, the true and rightful owners and myself. But if not, then you are “<B>guilty of unbefitting conduct</B>” as the <B>Letter of Reference</B>, to Christina Fletcher, was “<B>false or misleading</B>” in that it suggested everything was above board and no complaints were ever made.</div> <bR> <div> But you cannot prove anything was legit. "<B>A famous rule is that a thief cannot convey good title. . . .</B>" (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_title" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_t"><U><B><U>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_title</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Mr. Boada, being a con artist, cannot provide anything, but his dishonesty, so you had better put the blame on Mr. Boada and work diligently toward ensuring that the case against him will be brought to trial. This is honorable and noble.</div> <bR> <div> However, to defend him in this situation would be sheer nonsense. This vile man not only betrayed you, but heartlessly hurt people all over the earth. It is Mr. Boada and your own poor or overly greedy judgment that has brought you all the grief and ruin you presently suffer. I do not believe you would really want to defend this man's right, because of your ugly, unfair "<B>terms and conditions,</B>" to freely rob and cheat people with total immunity from punishment or loss for all that he has done wrong. If Mr. Boada is to be blamed, blame him. Remember:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Solicitors are relieved of their duty of confidentiality in specific instances - for example, where there is prima facie evidence of fraud or another crime, particularly if the solicitor realises that a client has used him/her to facilitate a crime. </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/eif/InternetPoliciesSite/Crime/Comments/LawSociety.html</U></B></FONT>) </div> <bR> <div> Justice is one of the greatest principles known to mankind. It demands that you leave the world a little better. But if you go after Mr. Boada, you might leave it a great deal better, because it could be the beginning of a major change in your country in regard to all the scams and shenanigans that take place because of fraudulent feudal and other fake titles of nobility sold in England. Stopping this would be a major accomplishment for the betterment of people all over the earth who would otherwise be hurt and/or ruined by men as despicable as Mr. Boada. </div> <bR> <div> I'd fall off my chair, if you could prove I actually received the principality of Halberstadt from the heirs (the owners) to all the patrimony of the Imperial and Royal German House of Hohenzollern. I'd have to eat my hat. But since this is something neither you nor anyone else can do, I'd like to see you do something truly right, good and honorable. Just tell the truth and do your hardest with a deep and abiding commitment to bring Mr. Boada to justice, and thus start the ball rolling against all the other guilty parties who sell falsehoods to the world from their many headquarters in England.</div> <bR> <div> I believe with all my being that Edmund Burke was right when he said, "<B>All that is needed for evil to win is for good men to do nothing.</B>" It is my hope that you will join the corps of good men who actually do something positive and good for their nation and the world in general. </div> <div>  </div> <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="id77.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor18"><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="irish_and_english_baronies.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Selling the Forbidden"><U><B>Next Page</B></U></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="irish_and_english_baronies.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Selling the Forbidden"><U> </U></A></FONT></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>