Crooked Solicitor 20

<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 Solicitor 20</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>   |   <A HREF="id78.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor19"><U>Crooked Solicitor19</U></A>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor 20</B>   |   <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>Article about Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal</B></div> <bR> <div> November 25, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Dear Mr. Pitts-Tucker,</div> <bR> <div> I don't know what is going on in the <B>Tribunal</B>, but I noticed the article on your plight on the <I><B>TimesOnline</B></I> dated <B>November 19, 2008</B> entitled, “<B>Solicitor accused of aiding 'bogus' trade in feudal titles.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5187689.ece</U></B></FONT>) This article states:</div> <div> <B>Mr. Pitts-Tucker vigorously denies that the transactions were dubious or fraudulent in any way or that he breached the solicitors' professional conduct rules. </B></div> <div> Really! It is not “<B>dubious</B>” that I was <B><U>not</U></B> given a “<B>good and marketable</B>” title to the Halberstadt? Or, that it was not “<B>dubious</B>” or suspect that the sellers denied ever selling the Halberstadt to me or Mr. Boada or that they had anything to do with any of Mr. Boada's so-called companies? How could it be more questionable, shaky, and suspicious? I paid out money and got “<B>bad title,</B>” which is the same thing as “<B>no title</B>” or “<B>no ownership</B>” to the "<B>incorporeal hereditament</B>" which I purchased. How could it be worse? I got nothing. Doesn't that sound fraudulent, dishonest, shady, twisted and unethical? Or is such an acceptable, proper and appropriate way to do business in your mind?</div> <bR> <div> If you bought a ship and paid a huge sum for it and never received a “<B>good and marketable</B>” title to it and the owners denied selling it to you, and left you high and dry without ownership to what you bought, wouldn't you say you were robbed and cheated and that something extremely “<B>dubious and fraudulent</B>” took place?</div> <bR> <div> Would a non-existent <B>terms and conditions</B> make it all above board? I sent the Law Society a copy of Mr. Boada's website of <B>April 2000</B> retrieved from the web archives. It shows absolutely no <B>terms or conditions</B> on it.</div> <bR> <div> The <B>terms and conditions</B> never applied to me as they were not in existence when I bought, but for others they may have applied. But how could they apply? They were in violation of the <B>Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999</B>? Are <B>terms and conditions</B> that violate important regulations acceptable to you? </div> <bR> <div> Come on, Mr. Pitts-Tucker, you're not thick, you're not a blockhead or a dummy --- you know what happen to me was fraudulent and wrong.</div> <bR> <div> And how can you say you never breached any of the conduct rules of your profession? Are you mad? What about your “<B>undertaking?</B>” Remember, “<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=426&PARENT=424</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> What about it, Mr. Pitts-Tucker?  Aren't you aware of the fact that:</div> <bR> <div> <B>The placeCityOSS 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> <bR> <div> I expect you to fulfill your legal obligation to me --- your professional promise. Without it, I cannot start my business. I couldn't start it in the year 2000 all because you failed me. I've probably lost, at least, hundreds of thousands of dollars because of your dereliction of duty, not to mention going bankrupt as a direct result of your neglect. I told you over and over again in different words that my ship was sinking, and my business was on fire and all would end up in ashes unless you came through.  Didn't you know that "<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>) You were and are still delinquent in this solemn duty. </div> <bR> <div> The Law Society Guide for conduct 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=424&POLICYID=424</U></B></FONT>) </div> <bR> <div> Where is it? It's been eight long years! What about performing this duty "<B>within a reasonable time?</B>" Or, what about fulfilling your obligation ever? Your firm legally promised the “<B>documents</B>” that would prove that the owners---the Imperial and Royal House of Hohenzollern actually were a party to this sale. You know, if the owners didn't sell the Principality, if they were not a party to the sale, then the sale did not take place, and the transaction was fraudulent. </div> <bR> <div> I officially told you in my complaint to the Law Society in <B>late 2002</B>:</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> This is the same message I have been requesting since <B>August of 2000</B>. Nothing has change. My request has been consistent and relentless. It is, in fact, what the “<B>undertaking</B>” promised to prove by providing “<B>documents</B>” that it really/truly/actually happened. Where are they?</div> <bR> <div> Surely your are aware 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>) And you are aware that In <B>18.09</B> of the Guideline for conduct that it clearly states that,<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. And did you know, “<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>) No conditions were specified but that the “<B>documents</B>” would be provided. And, “<B>A solicitor employer is responsible for honouring an undertaking given by any member of staff, including unadmitted staff.</B>” (<B>Guidelines 18:11</B>) This applies to [name redacted]. </div> <bR> <div> In addition, “<B>An ambiguous undertaking is generally construed in favour of the recipient.</B>” (<B>Guidelines 18.07</B>) But there was nothing ambiguous in the “<B>undertaking</B>” I was given especially when considered in the context of the fact that the missing link I was complaining about over and over again was that there was no proof that the owners of the Principality of Halberstadt were involved in the transaction. That is still the problem. And as you know, the owners have denied any involvement. They have declared through their attorneys that they never sold the Principality.</div> <bR> <div> The article in the <B>TimesOnline</B> stated:</div> <div>  </div> <div> <B>His [your] counsel, Gregory Treverton-Jones, QC, will argue that at all times Mr Pitts-Tucker believed that Mr Boada was legitimately able to sell the titles in question. </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5187689.ece</U></B></FONT>) </div> <bR> <div> That is a flat out lie. I sent you clear and convincing evidence of fraud in <B>early 2001</B> along with contact information so you could find out that it was true. You even wrote to me on <B>April 27, 2001</B> that:</div> <bR> <div> <B>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.</B> (See <B>Exhibits to the Investigators Report</B>)</div> <bR> <div> Why didn't you follow this self-proclaimed statement? Why did you turn a deaf ear to it? Why didn't you write or call or send emails to the people who testified that things were impossible and bogus and all wrong. That is professional misconduct to neglect allegations of fraud. Legally, you “<B>knew or you ought to have known</B>” better. </div> <bR> <div> Stop dealing is stupidities and absurdities. You have no real excuse. You are a villain. You have wronged me and many others. While you made 120,000 English pounds helping a known con artist, I lost everything and am still suffering for it. I have never been able to fully recover, because you have not honored your firm's “<B>undertaking.</B>” I don't know how you could be more negligent or more reckless professionally?</div> <bR> <div> Your only mitigating outlet at this time is to fulfill your legally obligated duty. Fulfill your “<B>undertaking!</B>” Do what is honorable and right! Show the Law Society that there is something good in you yet. I have amply and repeatedly let you know what would bring you some grace in these matters. Just do it.  Stop the nonsense.</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="id78.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor19"><U><B>Previous Page</B></U></A><B> /</B><A HREF="id80.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor 21"><U><B> </B></U></A><A HREF="id80.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor 21"><U><B>Next Page</B></U></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="id80.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor 21"><U> </U></A></FONT></div> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>