In correspondence dated December 14, 2000, Client Goff notified Pitts-Tucker & Co., London, that he had reason to doubt the legitimacy of the documentation he was provided.  Client Goff made it clear that he had researched the issue and did not believe that anyone named Peter Michael Hohenzollern-Saxe-Weimer-Civitella-Cessi-Lambrino actually existed.

In correspondence dated December 20, 2000, Client Goff informed Pitts-Tucker & Co., London, that he had sufficiently researched the matter; he had no faith in the legitimacy of the documentation they had provided.

Client Goff suggest that Pitts-Tucker & Co., or another solicitor, could be shown the stock certificates showing that the corporation is, in fact, owned by the members of the Imperial Royal Hohenzollern family and that Boada is Trustee, and make a determination as to the veracity of the representations.  Client Goff suggested that his interests could thereby be served while protecting the privacy and confidentiality of the Imperial Royal Hohenzollern family.

In e-mail correspondence dated January 26, 2001, Naffisa Sheikh stated to Client Goff that Pitts-Tucker had been instructed by their clients to ensure Client Goff that they are working towards an acceptable solution, but their was a delay due to travel, and other commitments.

In follow-up e-mail correspondence dated February 6, 2001 Naffisa Sheikh stated the following to Client Goff:

• Boada had complied with all legal formalities in transferring the title of the Principality of Halberstadt; and
• That Client Goff was afforded the opportunity to investigate the title and, indeed, the principle of caveat emptor would apply here; and
• Following further request by Client Goff, Boada went to “great expense” to secure a Statutory Declaration signed by Peter Michael Hohenzollern, and witnessed by a notary; and
• That she personally had seen 4 share certificates issued in the names of Hohenzollerns; “more importantly that she had seen a certificate signed by the directors; and
• Boada informed her that various members of the Hohenzollern Trust will take necessary action to protect their name and reputation if required against defamation, libel, slander, etc; and
• Boada informed her that Client Goff made representation that he wished to be recognized as a member of the Royal Family, and that if purchase of the title did not give him the status that he was seeking, then their client Boada was not at fault; and
• Requested that Client Goff’s research in to Mr. Peter Michael Hohenzollern-Saxe-etc., be sent by fax to Boada and that Client Goff failed to do this.

In sum, Pitts-Tucker was no longer pretending that they were going to assist Client Goff; they adopted the position that if Client Goff had been defrauded, he should have been more careful and raised the specter of litigation in an apparent attempt to intimidate Client Goff into silence.

In correspondence dated February 8, 2001 Client Goff sent Pitts-Tucker three e-mails pertaining to the questioning of the name Peter Michael Hohenzollern-Saxe-etc. Client Goff also responded to the items in the above referenced e-mail.

• No one ever mentioned or suggested caveat emptor; and
• The website and recommendations sent stated that BFI was a reputable company and well respected for integrity, and that all titles were 100% guaranteed; and
• The Statutory Declaration was useless as the Declarant could not be confirmed; and
• Boada never fulfilled the promises made to get Client Goff into Who Who’s of Titled Spanish Nobility; or provide him with the certificates, business licenses, etc., for British Dominion Guarantee Insurance Company.

In correspondence dated February 16, 2001, Client Goff points out to Pitts-Tucker & Co, that Boada’s website advertises “reliable feudal title acquisitions”, and that all titles are 100% insured or they are not sold.

In e-mail correspondence dated February 19, 2001, Client Goff asks Boada for information for tax purposes pertaining to his contribution to the Lazarus Medical Foundation, and requested this information as soon as possible, as his taxes must be filed by April 15, 2001.

In correspondence dated February 20, 2001, Naffisa Sheikh acknowledged receiving e-mails from Client Goff on February 8,9, 10, 16, and 19, 2001.  She stated that they were trying to consult Boada on the matter, and would respond once they had communicated with him.

In correspondence dated February 28, 2001, Client Goff stated to Pitts-Tucker that he continued to hope that Boada would be able to provide actual proof that the title was legitimate.

In e-mail correspondence dated March 7, 2001, Naffisa Sheikh stated to client Goff that it was Boada’s position that he had attempted to resolve the matter and he [Boada] felt there was nothing further he could do.

In correspondence dated March 12, 2001, Client Goff informed Pitts-Tucker that he had contacted the law firm of Glantz and Glantz, and a courtesy letter of demand will be sent to Boada’s address in Florida before evidence would be turned over to the Florida State Prosecutor’s Office.

In e-mail correspondence dated April 27, 2001, Naffisa Sheikh stated to Client Goff that Boada had attempted to meet the requests made of Client Goff, despite being under no post-contractual obligation to do so. Naffisa Sheikh stated that if Client Goff continued to complain, their client had instructed them to serve Client Goff with formal papers commencing the appropriate legal action.

At this point, it became clear to Client Goff that he needed assistance with this situation.

<< Previous   Contents   Next >>