Letters from the Imperial Family and the Abandonment
(This is probably one of the most profoundly certain claims on earth, and it is elaborated, verified and confirmed in great detail throughout the website. The "Brief Foreword" gives the big picture.)
If you have already read the important Brief Foreword, you can skip it by clicking on the following:
The Purpose and the Truth:
There are five major or leading reasons for this website:
(1) The first is to teach correct principles as there are serious falsehoods taught in the field of nobility and chivalry. (See "Problems and Solutions: The Future of Nobility and Chivalry" at http://www.nobility-royalty.com/id108.htm) Pope Felix III wrote, "Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend the truth is to suppress it." In other words, silence implies consent and promotes error and distortions.
(4) The fourth reason is this website is a well-written and documented doctoral project on international and domestic law. A university doctoral degree requires that one make a "significant original contribution to knowledge." In our case, this dissertation, which is, in fact, this website, provides proof far "beyond a reasonable doubt" that our claim is absolutely true, and the important laws that determine when a case is authentic, valid and genuine. Thus fulfilling an international law requirement. (See "The Law makes all the Difference between an Authentic and False Claim")
(5) And fifth, because my good name (Donald E. Goff, Ph.D., DBA, D.Litt. (eq.) and our claim have been unfairly attacked on the internet, the true facts needs to be published and made known. It is, as Edmund Burke emphatically declared, "All that is needed for the forces of evil to win, is for good men to do nothing." It is hoped that the real truth will prevail, not error or inaccuracies. Hence, a good reason for this website. (See "Problem -- Misinformation" and starting with http://www.nobility-royalty.com/beware_of_false_claims_of_sovereignty.htm on the website of The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty)
To fulfill all these important purposes:
George Washington declared, "Truth will ultimately prevail [but only] where there [is a concerted effort] to bring it to light." Every single relevant point will be examined in great detail, so that the reader can easily see that all the legal facts are more than adequately substantiated, verified and confirmed.
This website is about the lawful transfer of all the international land rights, distinctions and honors of the principality of Halberstadt, which claim has been vetted and recognized by scholars as being legally valid and legitimate. (See "The First of Seven Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges" and/or "Documents") In other words, this case is not based on hunches, speculation, guesswork, or suspicion. Nor it is based on foolish myths, legends, fabrication, or make believe. It is based on many cold, hard, verified facts -- the law itself. Including the fact that, not just one, but eight legitimate and lawful conveyance or acquisition laws transferred the title and rights thereof to our family. Thus, our claim is not only compelling, but it is truly beyond any reasonable doubt. This is because no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts, and expert legal witnesses have validated the claim as genuine and accurate. (See "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim" and "Documents: Testaments and Witnesses to the Truth")
In other words, this case is not questionable or problematic. The proof is not imaginary. It is as close to being flawless that is possible in this life.
To remove unreasonable or irrational doubt in any kind of important claim, ". . . it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge [or a case such as ours] in[to] mathematics." (Roger Bacon as quoted in Stuart Shanker, Wittgenstein and the Turning Point in the Philosophy of Mathematics, 1987 p. 269) Mathematics is one of the surest paths to truth, because the principles behind almost all things are mathematical. Of course, not every thing lends itself to math, but the precise exactness of the laws in this case and the facts thereof, do. For that reason, probability in particular is well-suited to our case. This project was done with the help of two prominent members of the Math Department of Dixie State University. The exacting science of probability shows the claim is not merely a "preponderance of evidence" level situation, making it "more likely than not," or even just a "clear and convincing" case, meaning it is exceptionally compelling. But it is nothing less than the highest confidence level available, which is far "beyond reasonable doubt." This is because it has achieved mathematical certainty.
The probability question was: "What are the chances that all 40+ separate legal and situational facts would combine to bear a perfect witness that our claim is absolutely true, if it wasn't absolutely and totally true?" That is, when all, not some, but all the evidence points in one direction in a major court hearing and the defense cannot produce any law or any contrary facts, then the conclusion is clear, obvious and unmistakable. Probability provides an even greater assurance or level of certainty.
Keep in mind that from back-alley dice games to highly sophisticated research in laboratories, the laws of probability have proven themselves to be just as dependable as the laws of gravity.
The result: an impressive 17,000,000 to one likelihood, if we ignore 40% of the proof (in other words, this is the most conservative figure, for if we use all the evidence, it is not merely a billion to one, but 1.1 trillion to one) that the claim could be anything but a true and genuine transmission of all rights and privileges.
It is hard to comprehend what a trillion is much less what one chance in a trillion might be. To help, note the following:
One chance in 17,000,000, or using more of the evidence, one chance in a 1.1 trillion is an enormous figure or likelihood. It is virtually perfect. There is basically zero probability or no chance our claim could be wrong. On the other hand, this means there is a 100% or 99.999411764703% likelihood that our claim could be anything, but profoundly and beautifully true. As stated several times, this kind of certainty is equal to or greater than any other regal claim that ever existed. The case is that solid. It could hardly be stronger. (See "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim")
The challenge is to find out for oneself, which means one must give it a fair hearing, due process and due diligence. Otherwise, one will do a great injustice to the verified facts, the historical realities, and the legal truths that saturates this case. But, as a result of such an effort, one would end up knowing a lot about the laws that created the transfer.
Every new, added and discovered fact of support has acted exponentially to the probability or likelihood that any proposed claim is absolutely true. One chance in 1.1 trillion that this claim is wrong or 1.1 trillion to one odds that it is right certainly puts this case in a category of beyond doubt. This enormous figure is conclusive of the fact. One might as well deny that the sun and moon exist as to doubt, or believe that pigs fly that this case is not of the highest confidence level possible in mortal life.
For example DNA proof is required to be 100 billion to one that something is an undeniable fact or absolutely true. (David E. Newton, Forensic Chemistry, 2007, p. 146) By comparison, the certainty of our case adds up to over 1.1 trillion to one that honorable laws gave us the principality. This is 1,100 times greater or more sure than DNA evidence is required to be. This says a lot about the immense credibility of the case as an established fact.
The point is, our claim is not built on flimsy evidence, but on solid rock.
Evidence in a Nutshell:
There are three types of belief: (1) a vague belief, (2) a well-supported belief, and (3) a belief that is beyond reasonable doubt. As will be seen, this case is build on the highest level of evidence possible. It is far above any reasonable doubt.
The point is, no one can just make a grand royal claim and it somehow someway magically becomes legit. It must be legally valid to be rightful. Legality is what divides the sheep from the goats. It distinguishes the true royals from the fakes, the impostors and the counterfeiters. (See "Proof is Necessary and Required" in "The Law makes all the Difference between an Authentic and a Fraudulent Claim")
The following are seven very basic general points. We'll get into the details and the specifics later on throughout this website:
(2) There is full compliance to all the relevant natural, international, and English laws which validate and confirm the claim to be factual, genuine, and true. This can be seen throughout the website,
(4) the 2002 legal abandonment of all rights of ownership of the principality by the Imperial and Royal House of Hohenzollern. (See "Abandonment" in "Letters from the Imperial Family"),
(6) Five of those transfer modes were established by international law. Three were domestic. However, along with power of English private international law (see "Private International Law and English Jurisdiction" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges"), normal domestic law in England, and most common law countries, have full authority over the legal rights of other sovereign entities that exist or have lawful standing within their own territories. (See "D. Adverse Possession transfers all the rights of an Estate which includes Regal and Sovereign Rights" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") What this means is the domestic modes are just as valid and legitimate as the legal right of the international transfer methods. This comes through either pivate law via English private international law statutes and practice, and/or domestic national law. Both have the legal right to deal with sovereign entities that exist under their jurisdictional authority as a nation.
Reliable evidence, using only 40% of the evidence, places the case at a 100% certainty (a 99.999411764703% probability level), which is several mathematical magnitudes "beyond any reasonable doubt." (See "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim") The point is, No other logical explanation can be derived from the facts, which is what "beyond any reasonable doubt" means.
Emerich de Vattel, one of the chief fathers of international law, declared that a whole kingdom or principality may be obtained by one ". . . who has purchased it, or received it in exchange, or acquired it by any title whatever." (Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book III, chapter 13, no. 198) (emphasis added)
It must be admitted that there is no a priori [self-evident] reason why the categories of methods of acquiring territorial sovereignty should be considered closed. International law is not so rigid as to exclude new developments. It may well be, therefore that there exists a sixth [or seventh or eight] method of acquiring territorial sovereignty. . . . (F. A. Mann, "The Present Legal Status of Germany," The International Law Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 3, Autumn, 1947, p. 326)
NEW MODES OF TERRITORIAL ACQUISITION: Title may now be acquired in ways other than those developed over the centuries since the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. . . . (William R. Slomanson, Fundamental Perspectives on International Law, 6th ed., 2011, p. 299)
Some new methods that are now widely recognized and used today are international proprietary estoppel, novation, consolidation of title, highest right or best claim, and historic title. Any legitimate method that is a legal and valid mechanism can pass on a sovereign regal entity. According to Vattel, it can be "by any title whatever." And ". . . It is this [kind of legal transfer] which gives the receiver . . . regal [kingly and/or princely] right." (Johann Wolfgang Textor, Synopsis of the Law of Nations, , vol. 2, John Pawley Bate, trans., chapter 9, no. 19, 1916)
[Sovereign] territories were transferred back and forth and thus boundaries were [quite fluid] drawn and redrawn as a result of war, conquest, treaties, dynastic marriage, purchase and other transactions. . . . (Robert H. Jackson, "Boundaries and International Society," International Society and the Development of International Relations Theory, Barbara Allen Roberson, ed., 1998, p. 161) (emphasis added)
Because "territories were transferred back and forth," and were fluid, changes in dynasties -- especially German principalities and lesser sovereign entities in Europe were fairly common occurrences. International law validates and confirms this historical practice as legally binding in modern times as well as in the early days of international law. (See the "Sovereign Honors and Rights can be Transferred") The international law qualifiers "acquired it by any title whatever" or "other [possible] transactions" for conveying regal sovereign rights demonstrates the flexibility and existence of alternative title transfers in international law. Besides the usual modes of acquisition and loss of sovereignty in international law, "A few novel methods have emerged." (J. H. W. Verzijl, International Law in Historical Perspective: State Territory, 1970, p. 297) This would include three domestic ones governed by private international law. (See Private International Law and English Jurisdiction" in The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") The point is, sovereignty may be acquired ". . . by any of the recognized modes by which private property is acquired by individuals," which includes adverse possession, proprietary estoppel and the domestic law of best title or best right doctrine. (Professor Pomeroy, "Sovereignty and Territorial Acquisition," The Treaty Making Power of the United States, Charles Henry Butler, ed., vol. 1, chapter 2, section 43, 1902, p. 74) In other words, Halberstadt was obtained by legal and lawful means -- eight of them, in fact, making the transfer definitive and perfect. (See "Conclusion")
Putting this all into perspective, if you had a 99.99999999+ chance -- a probability so extraordinary and certain -- that you'd win 100 million dollars tax free, would you take the bet? Most people would in a heart beat. Such a high likelihood is far greater than a beyond reasonable doubt determination, yet those astronomical odds are exactly how sure our claim really is. It is more likely that a person will find a 1,100 pound gorilla sitting in their car after work, than this claim is anything less than conclusive and absolutely true.
A Solid Foundation without Weaknesses
It only takes two relevant and confirmed material facts to achieve a "beyond reasonable doubt" confidence level determination, but we have over 50 verified facts demonstrating the truth and reliability of our claim. 50 is far greater -- far more certain and absolute than 2. This mean our case is 25 times more sure than is needed for a determination of being "beyond a reasonable doubt." But beyond that, the laws of probability makes it virtually certain and undeniable. (See "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim")
The point is:
You can't build something right on something totally wrong.
You can't build something powerful and strong on something fundamentally weak and fragile.
You can't build a great truth on a false paradigm, fantasy or make-believe.
You can't build something beautiful and lasting on filth, rot or decay.
To build on drifting unstable sand is a sure disaster.
You can't build a great building on a weak foundation and expect it to last.
If the foundation is cracked or built on unsteady ground it’s only a matter of time before it all comes crashing down. The difference between our claim and so many others is that it is built on a foundation that is solid -- based on sovereignty law, historical facts and legal precedence. It is sturdy because it is true.
Ignorance of the Law
The ancient law, that "ignorance is no excuse" has a long and extensive history. The time-honored Latin term, "Inorantia juris non excusat" means "ignorance of the law excuses not," and "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" means "ignorance of law excuses no one" (Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pp. 672-673 and UIA, The Encyclopedia of World Problems & Human Potential; 2018: http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/158218) These legal maxims were designed to promote justice and represent the ". . . legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability. . . ." (Ibid.) Other expressions of the same from ancient Rome are "nemo censetur ignorare legem" -- "nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law" or "ignorantia iuris nocet" -- "not knowing the law is harmful." (Ibid.)
If the law does not support a claim, the claim is false and can be rejected with impunity. This is because sovereignty and royalty either exist on a legal basis or they do not exist at all. Therefore, judging a dispossessed sovereign claim, such as ours, without knowing the applicable and relevant laws involved, is similar to judicial misconduct or malpractice. Using the totally wrong criteria in an evaluation can lead to an enormous misunderstanding of the fundamental facts involved. Hence, the caution that "ignorance of the law excuses no one." Due diligence cannot take place without a thorough investigation. (See "Questions and Answers continued" for a good example involving ignorance of the law)
Since our claim is rooted and grounded in the law that sustains it; since that is Its foundation, its core and center, even its very heart and soul, the laws involved must be understood. Therefore, the reader is encouraged to read without bias and learn the fundamentals that created and transferred the lawful titles and sovereign rights.
Basic Legal Principles:
Everything that follows -- in other words, the whole claim depends on some well-known, undeniable legal facts in domestic and international law. Many of the laws underlying this case are "legal maxims," that is, they are time-tested fundamental rules of justice and equity recognized as universally rightful and fair to all involved. (See "Legal Maxims" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") The following are some of the most basic fundamental principles. The references contained in each statement will take one to detailed explanations, legal citations and verified evidence substantiating each one as important and significant:
It all started with a valid English Deed of Transfer in the year 2000, that in spite of an investigation costing over $300,000.00 USD by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the London Tribunal, the conveyance could not be proven fraudulent or false. It was recognized as a legitimate conveyance document. (See "Documents -- Testaments and Witness to the Truth")
In English law, "adverse possession" can fully and completely transfer a private deposed international sovereignty right through "private international law," which law is universally designed to legally solve private legal problems involving a fundamental international component or foreign involvement. It can make domestic laws operative for private international concerns:
. . . Jurisdiction in international cases of a private nature [like the transfer of the private international land rights of the principality] is not governed by international law, but by the domestic law of each state [through private international law]. (Chilenye Nwap, "Litigating Extraterritorial Corporate Crimes in Canadian Courts," Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia, 2012, p. 142)
In other words, private international law can activate or empower domestic adverse possession in transferring international territorial rights of a private nature. That is, "Private international law rules . . . [include a] . . . domestic legal system’s concepts of time bars [statutes of limitation] and adverse possession. . . ." (Christa Roodt, State Courts or ADR in Nazi-Era Art Disputes: A Choice "More Apparent than Real?," p. 432; 2016: http://cardozojcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/CAC205.pdf) (emphasis added)
This important law can also lawfully handle private cases involving sovereignty such as ours. The Principality of Halberstadt is a privately owned legal, non-territorial sovereign entity in international law. ". . . In the case of private international law [situations are usually] of a private character, though . . . one . . . may be a sovereign state [or a deposed royal house that lawfully maintained and preserved their sovereign rights]." (S. S. Gulshan, Business Law, 4th ed., 2012, p. 16) (emphasis added) In other words, ". . . Private international law [can be] between individuals or between individuals and states." (Paras Diwan and Peeyushi Diwan, Private International Law: Indian and English, 1993, p. 47) This law is legally competent to enable or empower domestic laws to transfer a private international sovereign territory, such as, the principality of Halberstadt. (See "The Importance of English Private International Law" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality" and "Private International Law and English Jurisdiction" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
Not just the power and authority of private international law, but, if the legal mechanism exists in the nation, their domestic national law can also adjudicate, transfer and alter the rights of a domestic sovereign entity that exists within the domain of a particular nation. This is true as long as an such as act does not violate international law. This legal authority has been demonstrated by decades, even centuries, of legal practice. (See "D. Adverse Possession transfers all the rights of an Estate which includes Regal and Sovereign Rights" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
English adverse possession of a proprietary territory in international law establishes "constructive possession." That is, "possession in law" or vicarious possession, which is legally equal to actual possession through a landlord/tenant relationship. "Factual Possession" in English adverse possession law also includes the right of constructive possession through the sovereign (landlord)/tenant relationship. This legal status along with private international law enables adverse possession law to have the legal competence to operate for a deposed or non-reigning sovereignty still valid under international law. (See "Constructive Possession" in "Three more Legally Binding Methods Transferred all the Rights of the Principality" and "Factual or Constructive Possession is required, not Actual Possession" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
Both adverse and constructive possession create immediate secondary ownership of the territory in question, which right is above all others on earth with the exception that the historical owner still has the right to re-establish his possession. However, this right to re-possess only lasts until either the historical owners legally abandon the territorial land, which, in our case, they did in 2002, or the limitations period completes and finalizes the ownership in the adverse possessor, which took place in 2013. Hence, full and complete ownership was transferred to us in this way. (See "Constructive Possession," "1st Legally Binding Transfer of Rights -- Universal and Binding" and "3rd Legally Binding Transfer of Rights 2002: Highest Entitlement on Earth" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality") (See also "Letters from the Imperial Family")
It is important to understand that all seven methods are legally concluded and finalized without court or any other legal involvements. That is, the statutes and laws involved stand free, independent and clear of any outside meddling and are immediately binding and final when the requirements are met. (See "Automatic Nature of Adverse Possession in English Law" and "Court Involvement is not Required for Occupation to Effect Changes in Sovereignty" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality"),
Official recognition and/or the support of other states, scholars or organizations concerning a change of sovereignty are nice to have, but are irrelevant and unnecessary as the reality of the transfer is a legal fact. The point is, ". . . Sovereignty is neither created by recognition nor destroyed by nonrecognition." (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, edition 15, part 3, vol. 17, 1981, p. 312) Recognition cannot change a false and phony into something true and real, or something authentic into make believe. Truth is truth. Nevertheless, several prominent international legal scholars and experts have confirmed the validity of the claim. (See "Recognition Unessential to being Legitimate and Valid" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges" and "Recognition is Immaterial or Irrelevant to the Situation" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality"),
Four powerful protective laws safeguard what has taken place:
d. Both the domestic and international principle of "laches," a domestic and international doctrine similar to a statue of limitations, which also prevents or bars the consideration of a case after a period of time generally over 14 years. Laches is connected with the legal maxim: "Equity [or justice] aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones;" that is, those who sleep on their rights or do nothing in a timely manner. (See "Critical Date" in "A Seventh and an Eighth Method also Transferred all the Rights and Privileges").
Each of these rules of law prevent any future effort to change the fact that the principality has been properly and permanently lost to the Imperial family, which lawfully abandoned it, and has been juridically acquired by the Goff/Harradine family in perpetuity or forever,
When all the facts are added up, the case is extremely solid, way beyond "more likely than not." It has reach undeniable mathematical and legal certainty. (See "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim")
The legitimate claim for these international property rights are based on law -- the most solid of laws on earth. In other words, every facet of the domestic and international laws involved are fundamentally rooted in natural law -- laws recognized as conclusive in all the earth for every people and culture and for all the ages of mankind. As the Sir William Blackstone declared on natural law:
It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. (Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. 1, 4th ed., 1770, p. 41) (See "Natural and International Law" and "Natural Law and Adverse Possession" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
Statistical Summary and Conclusion
That is, our claim is not only "clear and convincing" or highly compelling, but it is "beyond any reasonable doubt." It is based on "law" -- as all true and valid claims are. (See The Law makes all the Difference between an Authentic and a Fraudulent Claim) The evidence is straightforward and upfront, because it is based on clear-cut, self-evident laws and circumstances that are verified by affidavits and living witnesses as well as the important legally relevant documents involved.
When the principles of probability are applied, the odds are 1,100,000,000,000 (1.1 trillion) to one that our claim could be anything other than true. Consider the following comparative statistical facts to understand how great important this finding really is:
You are more likely to be struck by lightening than this claim is not absolutely true (1 chance in 3,000),
There is a greater likelihood you will be killed by an asteroid or comet than our claim to the principality could be false (1 chance in 250.000), and
1,100,000,000,000 to one is a very staggering figure that describes something that is mathematically certain. It is conclusive. When you think about it, you are more likely to be attacked and killed by a shark in your lifetime (1 chance in 3,748,067). You are more likely to die from the use of fireworks (1 chance in 340,733), more likely to die from drowning (1 chance in 1,134), to be killed in a car accident (1 chance in 84), have a stroke (1 chance in 24), be struck down by heart disease (1 chance in 5), even injured by a toilet (1 chance in 10,000) or hit a deer in the State of Hawaii where deer are truly rare (1 chance in 6,787). (What are the Odds of a Shark Attack; 2018: https://www.thewildlifemuseum.org/exhibits/sharks/odds-of-a-shark-attack) All of these things are more likely to happen to you than that our claim could be false, even if all the odds were added up and compared to it.
1.1 trillion to one means that the likelihood that our claim is absolutely true is at least 99.999999 percent -- practically perfect as 100% is absolutely perfect. That means for all practical purposes, the claim has a 100% mathematical certainty, or an extremely or enormously high confidence level. It is far too obvious, far too self-evident to deny or doubt. Statistically speaking, the odds are far beyond logical or reasonable doubt. The point is, belief is absolutely warranted and appropriate for a case where the evidence is truly beyond reasonable doubt. It has achieved the highest and most remarkable level of proof that is possible on earth. This makes this case, not only acceptable, not only compelling, but is a profound fact. (See "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim")
The truth is, our claim is incontrovertible. Yet because of widespread bias and misinformation in the field of nobility and royalty, ". . . malice may attack it [and] ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is [as real and true as any other regal claim on earth]. (paraphrased from Winston Churchill) (See "PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS: The Future of Nobility and Chivalry" at http://www.nobility-royalty.com/id108.htm)
_______(End of Brief Foreword)_______
Letters from the Imperial Family
Contents: (Every section and subsection in one way or another provides verified evidence of the truth)
The Letters and What they Mean
It is important to understand the strength and sureness of the law as it relates to our regal and royal claim. It has a rock solid foundation. In fact, the case is now legally protected and safeguarded by statute. That is:
Ownership, at this point, cannot be overturned. This transfer of all rights, privileges, honor and distinctions was achieved by the fulfillment of a combination of international and domestic laws bringing adverse possession come to pass. That is:
If [the prior owner or royal house] does not take [legal] action within that time [the 12 year limitation period], then its claim is time-barred. Section 17 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that once time-barred, [the prior owner's] title is extinguished [terminated, or legally eradicated]. . . . The title [of the possessor then] . . . becomes unimpeachable [or impossible to be defeated] by [the prior owner] (and anyone claiming [rights] through [the prior owner's] title). (Ben McFarland, Nicholas Hopkins, Sarah Nield, Land Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, 2nd ed., 2012, p. 251) (emphasis added)
As the law stands, . . . after 12 years . . . the [claimant’s] title becomes unassailable [that is, unimpeachable or incontestable], because no one [at this point] has a better right to possess than he or she does. (UK Law Commission, no. 271; 2016: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Lc271.pdf)
In other words:
Unimpeachable, as stated above, means incontrovertible or the same as irrefutable, unalterable or incontestable on a legal and lawful basis. The rule of law, as in this case, provides certainty. The rule of law is, in fact, the safest, the most secure, and solid type of royal or noble claim in existence. All rightful claims are founded on law. It is always a legal issue, not one of hereditary, history or tradition.
The claim is certain and conclusive. The following demonstratives additional absurdities.
Understanding legal writings in areas for which one is unacquainted can be very daunting and difficult. This is the reason I asked three prominent international lawyers, Dr. Kerr, Dr. Briceño, and Dr. Cawthorne, to verify our claim of sovereignty, so others could be assured that it is legally "spot on" in terms of the sovereign and regal rights and privileges. (See "Documents")
In reaching a conclusion about any sovereign claim, one must be sure that it is according to the rule of law, and not by opinion or what is popular, but what is legally solid and valid. The claim of Halberstadt is a claim based entirely on law. It is just as solid or more secure than most traditional claims with hundreds of years behind them, because just ancient and modern law is at the root and foundation of the claim.
The first letter was on March 25, 2001. It like the others was an official statement by J. F. von Strantz, the attorney and general secretary of the Imperial and Royal House of Hohenzollern. It is not a personal or informal letter, but a legally binding answer for and behalf of the head and chief of House.
Adverse possession requires that the original owner know about the possession or claim. That is, one of the requirements of adverse possession is that it must be "Open and Notorious." It cannot be done in secret or by stealth or covert actions. It must be upfront. This letter confirms the fact that the Imperial House was aware of the conveyance of the principality which is what was going on in England. In fact, since I did not mention Mr. Boada's name in my letter, and yet they named the vendor in theirs, this is an added acknowledgement that they knew all about what was going on. Of course, if nothing else my letter informed them about the conveyance. Therefore the following letter is proof of an important and essential requirement of adverse possession.
HRH Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia passed to me your letter of 20 March 2001. On behalf of the prince I may inform you that a Mr. Boada is completely unknown to him and hat there exists not any business you mentiones in the name of his family.
J. F. von Strantz
Attorney at Law
The second purpose this letter achieved, necessary to adverse possession, was the assertion that there was no connection between them and the vendor who was conveying all the rights to the principality. Adverse possession cannot apply unless there was something wrong with the legalized conveyance deed. The deed itself was a legal English document authenticated by an apostille of the English Office of Foreign Affairs and the Commonwealth. However, with the claim that there was no connection between the Imperial House and the vendor, the deed of transfer, thought a valid and legal instrument, could not convey "good title." This put the conveyance in question. According to English adverse possession, a defective yet valid transfer deed automatically switches from being a conveyance claim to an adverse possession claim. As long as constructive or factual possession continues in harmony with the requirements of adverse possession, a defective conveyance becomes a lawful or genuine adverse possession case. (See "Adverse Possession Cures Defects in Conveyances" and "The Adverse Possessor does not need to know that he is Adversely Possessing the Rights to the Property he has taken control of or Factually Occupied" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") In other words, this letter has a profound impact on the situation. It enabled the claim to have legal standing as an English adverse possession case. This was in 2002.
The second letter was also from Mr. von Strantz, but was through another individual who had a Principality conveyed to him via the same vendor Antonio Boada and his English solicitor Roger Pitts-Tucker. It is dated October 2, 2002:
Bremen, den 02, Okt. 2002
Your kind letter of 13 Sept. 2002 has been passed to me by HIRH the Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia. The Prince asked me to convey his thanks for your informations. I may confirm that these actions you described are definitely illegitimate. No titles of nobility are “owned” by the Prince as the head of the Former Royal family of Prussia ore other Royal families in Germany since the German Constitution of 1919 (Constitution of Weimar) is in order, according to which titles of nobility are no longer allowed to be awarded. This is more than 80 years old legal facet which should be known to everybody who is involved wither historically or in view of legalicy and law. The Prince does not wish to take action against this man whoe’s commercial behavior is obviously illegal. As a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany he whishes to keep distance from matters of this kind.
With the Prince’s best whishes I remain,
J. F. von Strantz
Attorney at Law
Reading these letters, and not knowing the law, most people would not be able to realize how important and valuable they are to a claim of adverse possession. An explanation follows:
In it important again to note that the second letter is again an official letter, and also written by the attorney and general secretary. Both letters qualify as legal acts of estoppel by being formal letters and because they were relied upon fulfilling the law that makes estoppel apply to the case. (See the subsection entitled "Estoppel" on the web page "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges" for what constitutes and makes estoppel binding) Again, both letters confirm that the Imperial House was informed and aware of the conveyances, which knowledge again fulfills the requirement or mandate that the possession or claim was known to the original owner.
In addition, this last letter states several important additional facts critically essential to enable adverse possession to take full effect and thus consequently provide us with complete ownership:
1. There is a denial that a sale of the titles or rights to the Principality took place. The Imperial House declared that the "commercial behavior is obviously illegal" and "actions you described are definitely illegitimate." This is true especially if one looks only and exclusively through the perspective of German domestic law. But the claim to Halberstadt is an international law right and has nothing to do with German national law. Nevertheless, they make it questionable that the authentic Deed of Transfer could transfer "good title" to the property.
2. There is also a denial of ownership or proprietary rights concerning the titles or rights of the Principality -- this amounts to a legal abandonment and abdication of all entitlement. The fact is they did own the principality and its territory under international law, not domestic German law. (See "Who Rightfully Owned the Rights of Halberstadt in the Past?" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
No titles [or rights] of nobility are “owned” by the Prince as the head of the Former Royal family of Prussia ore other Royal families in Germany since the German Constitution of 1919 (Constitution of Weimar) is in order, according to which titles of nobility [and titular rights] are no longer allowed to be awarded. This is [a] more than 80 years old legal facet [fact] which should be known to everybody who is involved wither [whether] historically or in view of legalicy [the legality] and [constitutional law [involved].
3. ". . . The Prince does not wish to take action. . . . He whishes (sp) to keep distance from matters of this kind," (This established the abandonment requirement, or mandate, of intention -- the fact that they were not concerned, and would not interfere or get involved in any way with the conveyances, but let go completely and totally their right to the principality to English law and dominion.)
4. This and the previous letter both acknowledge the fact they knew and acknowledged what was taking place in England by English contract law, prior to my letters concerning the two dispossessed sovereignties that were being conveyanced in England. This is proof that the sale was known to them, which was another requirement necessary to establish the transfer by adverse possession.
Most people, not knowing the law, would not know that all of the above three important facts, which were communicated, are requirements needed for adverse possession to have legal standing and therefore legal impact:
1. If the sale was admitted or acknowledged to have actually taken place, adverse possession would be impossible, because there would be nothing adverse about the possession. It would be legitimized as a valid conveyance, rather than a transfer of rights by the law of adverse possession. In other words, if the Imperial House did not refute the conveyance, adverse possession could not apply to the situation. (For more details on the nine requirements of adverse possession, see the subsection "Adverse Possession" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
2. A denial of ownership means the rights to the Principality cannot be contested by the Imperial House later on, because they have already repudiated ownership and estoppel means this cannot be legally retracted or later reversed or rescinded their words. It is set in stone. (For a more detailed presentation, see the subsection entitled "Estoppel" under "English Jurisdiction and Authority" on the web page "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
b. Nevertheless, by denying ownership, they set the titles of the Principality free of any future right to reclaim them. This is called "abandonment," which has permanent legal consequences under estoppel. (See the subsection entitled "Abandonment" below on this web page)
3. The claim that they would not take (legal) action means they would not fight the fact that the property was being conveyed to another person. This is also very important. That is, not only was their an abandonment of ownership, but they declared that they would not get legally involved. This was further confirmed by the fact that they fulfilled their word by never legally registering a protest in England during the 12 year limitation period. The consequences of lack of interest in fighting it under English adverse possession law had the same legal effect as a permanent forfeiture and loss of all rights. (For a more detailed report, again see the important subsection entitled "Estoppel" under "English Jurisdiction and Authority" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges"), and
4. According to English adverse possession law, as formerly stated, it is necessary that the former owner know about the possession, so that he or she can, if they chose to, actually legally contest the possession or stop it from occurring. (See the third requirement for adverse possession entitled "Open and Notorious" on the web page "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
In other words, all the four facts contained in the letter were all extremely beneficial, important and necessary, to ensure that adverse possession could work. These letters were in 2001 and 2002 respectively. After the twelve years by the statute of limitations, all the regal rights, benefits and privileges of this de jure possession automatically became legally, lawfully and exclusively owned by the Goff/Harradine family.
As third letter reconfirms the above conclusions. It was received on October 20, 2004 by email from Dr. Peter Nolte, the new attorney for the Imperial House of Hohenzollern. Mr. von Strantz had retired.
Dear Mr. Goff
-- BOADA --
After having returned to Hamburg, I read your mail to Mrs. Blankart [the new Secretary to the Imperial House].
(1) Boada has no rights whatsoever with respect to the Hohenzollern family. We never before heard his name.
(2) The Imperial House of Prussia has never conveyed rights to principalities except the transfer to the State of Prussia after World War I. [Note: In international law, this never took place -- an abdication does not transfer such rights. A forced, or coerced one, definitely does not. No transfer ever took place on an international legal level -- see "Who Rightfully Owned the Rights of Halberstadt in the Past" on the web page "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights"]
(3) In a list of titles of Wilhelm II in a document dated 23 June 1920, you will find inter alia “Prinz zu Halberstadt.” This is only history: The list begins with the word “vormals” + formerly.
(4) A “Trade Consult Group Ltd” or a “Hohenzollern Family Land Trust” is – to my best knowledge – not known to any member of the family.
Each of the above four statements verify or confirm the denial of both the conveyance and ownership of the Principality in one way or another. Both of these denials were necessarily to create an adverse possession situation in England.
Under German domestic law, the Imperial House did not own the rights to the Principality; however, under international law, they did own it and never gave them up until their recent formal statements. This is an important legal fact. It is explained in the subsection entitled, "Who Rightfully Owned the Rights of Halberstadt in the Past," in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges." Dr. Kerr’s book The Entitlement to Rule: Legal, Non-Territorial Sovereignty in International Law explains all of these things in great detail. It can be seen in full at http://www.the-entitlement-to-rule.com)
These Letters were Legally Binding and Effective
The Imperial and Royal House of Hohenzollern holds sovereignty, the highest secular right on the earth, as a deposed house in international law. As Edmund Burke wrote, ". . . the king [or sovereign prince] does not lose his quality [his imperial royalty] merely by the loss of his kingdom [or territory]. If he is stripped of it unjustly by a usurper, or by rebels, he preserves his rights. . . ." (Edmund Burke, The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, vol. 4, 2007, p. 332) That is, ". . . One who has a true right does not lose his right because he has lost possession. . . ." (Christian Wolff, Jus Gentium Methodo Scientifica Pertractatum: The Translation, vol. 2 , Joseph H. Drake, trans., no. 984, 1935, p. 499)
A deposed monarch is the personification and embodiment of a government-in-exile. "International law recognizes that governments in exile may undertake many types of actions. . . . [One of these actions include] becoming a party to a bilateral or international treaty. . . ." (US Legal, Governments-in-Exile Law and Legal Definition; 2016: http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/government-in-exile and Syed Jamaluddin, Formation of Republic of Jinnahpur: An Inevitable Solution, 2008, p. 183)
To understand how the following quote is relevant to a deposed monarchy, note that a legal, non-territorial sovereign is the personification and embodiment of the rightful government of his country. Thus, a monarchy illegally deposed, who have maintained and preserved their de jure sovereign rights are the full legal equivalent of an exiled government.
The only inherent limitation of a government in exile [or deposed monarchy] is its – presumably temporary – absence from the State territory. This only limits the competence to perform [act on] certain treaties and not the competence [or legal right] to conclude [or create] them. Governments in exile have regularly concluded treaties. . . . There is no difference between the treaty-making competence [or power] of governments in exile and that of governments in situ [who control the country]. (Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: with Particular Reference to Governments in Exile, 1998, p. 136)
Holding the supreme authority of sovereignty, the head of the dispossessed Imperial or Royal House has the authority to make treaties. "In the most limited [or narrow] sense, treaties are mere contracts [agreements or declarations] between states [in this case from a deposed sovereign house]." (Brian Taylor Sumner, "Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice," Duke Law Journal, vol. 53, no. 1779, 2004, p. 1808) What constitutes a treaty is broadly defined and inclusive. In other words, these agreements or treaties can be official letters:
A treaty may . . . be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same. (Wikipedia, Treaty; 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty) (emphasis added)
In other words:
Treaties are called by about 30 different names which include conventions, protocol, declaration, charter, covenant, pact, act, statute, agreement, concordat, modus vhendi, [and] exchange of notes (or letters) [etc.]. . . . (U. Oji Umozurike, Introduction to International Law, 1993, p. 163) (emphasis added)
Official letters, such as the ones shown on this page are legally treaties. They have the intention, whether implied or in an obvious fashion, to create or change things legally, which they did, and must be from a sovereign entity through his official representative -- the General Secretary of the House, who was also the Prince's attorney. Vattel, one of the founding fathers of international law, explains this. Words were added in brackets to this quote to better explain how this was fulfilled in our case.
The agreements and contracts which the sovereign makes with private individuals [to us or by surrendering the case to English authority], in his character as sovereign and in the name of the [deposed] State [through the general secretary and House attorney acting officially for and in his behalf as an authentic non-territorial sovereign], follow the rule which we have given for public treaties. (Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 2, chapter 14, nos. 214-215)
. . . When a prince has the power to contract in the name of the State [the Imperial and Royal House of Hohenzollern in this case], he binds all of his successors, and they in turn are not less bound than he to fulfill his contracts [which contracts are as binding as treaties]. (Ibid.)
In other words, these letters are legally binding and, in addition, by the rules of estoppel in both international and English domestic law, they cannot be retracted, repudiated or withdrawn. (See "Pertinent Binding Laws" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") What these letters amount to is (1) that the rights to the Principality were abandoned or abdicated as they denied ownership, and (2) they declared they would not protest, take any legal action against, or interfere in the English legal deliberations over the Principality. This means they surrendered their rights to the principality over to English jurisdiction to deal with according to their laws. This was done in 2002. However, the clock started ticking for adverse possession in 2001 to permanently transfer all the rights and entitlements of the principality. This abandonment and abdication of all sovereign ownership or the legal transfer of rights only enhanced or made sure that adverse possession would succeed. The point is:
. . . Every state [reigning or deposed] has the right, in accordance with its constitutional norms, to transfer jurisdiction to another state [or as in history to an individual]. . . . Such jurisdictional transfer is an entirely valid exercise of national [or de jure] sovereignty. (M. Cherif Bassionuni, “The Permanent International Criminal Court, Justice for Crimes Against Humanity, Mark Lattimer and Philippe Sands, eds., 2003, p. 184)
In other words:
Such acts and agreements [as wills, testaments, inter-vivos transferals of sovereignty, renunciations, protest against the usurpations] which a de jure [that is, a deposed] sovereign makes in his public law character follow the rules of public international law applicable to treaties. (Stephen P. Kerr, Dynastic Law: 2019: http://www.nobility-royalty.com/id70.htm; Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, vol. 1, nos. 486-490, 507-509 and Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 2, chapter 19, Nos. 214 and 215)
In other words, they are binding and have legal standing.
A close cousin to international treaty law and estoppel is the permanent binding power of both international and private juridical acts. On an international level ". . . juridical acts or further legally relevant facts can operate as titles by which territorial sovereignty [the internal right to rule] can be (a) acquired [or] (b) lost." (J. H. W. Verzijl, International Law in Historical Prospective, vol. 3, 1970, p. 347) In other words, ". . . Royal Status, Rights of Succession, and Membership in Royal Houses can be created or lost by an appropriate Juridical Act." (Stephen P. Kerr, "Resolution of Monarchical Successions Under International Law," The Augustan, vol. 17, no. 4, 1975, p. 988) Juridical arts are very powerful and far-reaching; and they are done outside of any court decree or verdict by either domestic or international law or both.
The history of the various European reigning Houses illustrates the maintenance and loss of the royal prerogative through such juridical actions as:
1. Disinheriting lawful successors,
2. Transferring (ceding) sovereignty
3. Abdication and renunciation
4. Exclusion of a lawful successor or family (destroying their dynastic rights),
5. Designating who or what family line will succeed to the throne, and
. . . A juridical act is "any statement or agreement, whether express, or implied from conduct, which is intended to have legal effects as such. It may be unilateral, bilateral or multilateral." (Eva Kassoti, The Juridical Nature of Unilateral Acts of States in International Law, 2015, p. 123)
[A] . . . juridical act is a declaration of intention directed toward legal effects that the legal order recognizes and guarantees. (John Henry Merryman and Rogelio Perez-Perdomo, The Civil Law Tradition: An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Europe and Latin America, 3rd ed., 2007, p. 77)
Both implied and explicit "juridical acts" have, by definition and practice, the full binding force to ruin legal rights or preserve them completely outside of court or arbitration on both domestic and international levels. Like Treaty law -- a ". . . contract or other juridical act need not be concluded, made or evidenced in writing nor is it subject to any other requirement as to form." (DCFR II.-I:106(1) "Unless provided otherwise, no form needs to be observed in legal dealings." (Research Group on the Existing EC Private Law, Contract II, 2009, pp. 275-280) "A promise may be stated in words either oral or written, or may be inferred wholly or partly from conduct." (U. S. Restatement of Contracts, section 4, 1981) (Florian Wagner-von Papp, "European Contract Law," Current Legal Problems 2010, vol. 63, George Letsas and Colm O'Cinneide, eds., 2010, p. 518) Their purpose is to either create, constitute, modify, transfer or extinguish a lawful legal right, which obviously can be accomplished in official letters, by House attorneys, as illustrated above.
A juridical act can be an abdication, a contract, a treaty, an act of estoppel, a waiver of rights, a last will and testament, a deed, an abandonment, a unilateral promise, a guarantee or warrantee, a declaration of ownership, a disinheritance, a renunciation, a denial of ownership, etc., and result in a number of other legally recognized gains and losses. They have the enormous power to permanently change things on a legal basis.
The letters from the Imperial and Royal House, not only qualify under international treaty law and estoppel, but are juridical acts because they not only denied ownership, but declared they would not take any legal action to prevent what was taking place in England. This juridical act had the binding effect to turn all legal dealings concerning the conveyance document and the principality over to English law. Having turned the fate of the Principality of Halberstadt, a legal, non-territorial sovereign entity still intact in international law, over to the English private international law, which has the power to activate domestic law in regard to foreign and international concerns. The statutes of England then transferred the principality through adverse possession and other domestic acquisition laws to our family. (See "Private International Law and English Jurisdiction" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
Estoppel is a technical rule of the English law of evidence; when one party makes a statement of fact and another party take some action in reliance on that statement, the courts will not allow the first party to deny the truth of his statement if the party who acted in reliance on the statement would suffer some detriment in the event of the statement [was set aside or was] proved to be false. (Peter Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th revised ed.,1970, p. 154)
Estoppel sets in cement, or makes unalterable, the actions or statement of the original party that is relied upon. In our case, it is the Imperial House’s renunciation of ownership through their attorneys that is locked in and cannot be changed. "The law of Estoppel is [part] of a class of incontestable [or incontrovertible] rights. . . ." (Melville Madison Bigelow, A Treatise on the Law of Estoppel, Or of Incontestable Rights, 6th ed. – revised, 1913, p. 4) It has a profound influence on legal situations both in England and in international law. This law on both a domestic and international level is important to understand. (See "Estoppel" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
Ways to Stop Adverse Possession
"It is not enough for the true owner to make a claim to possession . . . or make a limited use of it [to stop adverse possession in England]." (Stephen Jourdan and Oliver Radley-Gardner, Adverse Possession, section 20-16, 2011, p. 396) There are only three ways to stop adverse possession from creating new ownership or title to unregistered property in English law. None of these occurred, which makes our ownership of all the rights of the Principality legally protected and secure, because the House of Hohenzollern did as they said they would. They did not protest or contest what took place, but rather abandoned or discarded their claim by denying ownership and confirmed their disregard by silent acquiescence or neglect. Note the following:
1. No legal proceedings or formal legal actions where initiated to stop adverse possession from taking place. "Mere assertions [verbal or in writing] by the paper owner about his legal rights will be ineffective to stop time running in favour of [the adverse possessor]." (Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran) (Paul Chynoweth, The Law of Adverse Possession; 2015: http://www.lawlectures.co.uk/law3/Documents-Law3/Adverse-Possession%28SP%29.pdf) Written objections or protests do not stop the clock on the limitation period. Court action must be initiated or the transfer will be successful after the 12 year limitation period has extinguished all rights of the former owner.
In our case, the Imperial House stated that they would not take any action against the conveyance of the Principality, and true to their word, they did not attempt any legal procedure or get involved in any way to prevent the transfer of their rights to the myself and my family.
2. The former owner (the Imperial House) did not give permission to the adverse possessor (myself) to use their rights to the property. If this was done, then the possession would not be adverse or against the interests of the paper owner, thus adverse possession would have been thwarted. (Ibid. and BP Properties Ltd v Buckler (1987) 55 P & CR 337)
However, such a grant, if it took place, could be unilaterally rejected in writing making the grant of no effect. This action would have maintained and preserved the adverse nature of the possession. However, no such permission was granted. Thus, both the first and second defenses against adverse possession do not apply to this situation, because neither took place.
3. If the paper owner were a powerless minor, disabled or mentally incapacitated, adverse possession would be impossible to complete. Since nothing of this kind exists for the head and chief of the Imperial House, who has access to money and staff or the capacity to act and since no such claim was made within the limitation period, then the defense of incapability against adverse possession could not have been made. It could not have been made even before the statue of limitations expired as it would have been an act of fraud.
The point is, "No action shall be brought by any person . . . after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued. . . ." (Limitation Act 1980 section 15(1) ". . . Any action for the recovery . . . must be brought before the expiration of the limitation period [not after the fact]." (Kevin Gray and Susan Francis Gray, Land Law, 2011, p. 490) After the limitation period, all rights, all ownership and every legal connection to the land -- international regal property rights in this case -- are forfeited and lost forever. "When a [claimant] has completed the limitation period the dispossessed owner's right to recover the land is barred and his title to the estate is extinguished [or forever terminated]." (Judith-Anne MacKenzie and Mary Phillips, Textbook on Land Law, 2013, p. 146)
"A state [a reigning or legitimate non-reigning sovereign entity in international law] may readily relinquish territory [by an act of] deny[ing] . . . sovereignty or ownership over it." (Gbenga Oduntan, International Law and Boundary Disputed in Africa, 2015, p. 46) A renunciation of ownership is a denial of ownership, which is by definition an abandonment. ". . . Denial of ownership would mean renouncing [or abandoning] its sovereignty. . . ." (Jon Harald Sande Lie, Developmentality: An Ethnography of the World Bank-Uganda Partnership, 2015, p. 225) In other words, "[A sovereign entity] may readily relinquish territor[ial rights as the Imperial House did, by] deny[ing] . . . ownership over it," which is a well-known and obvious form of abandonment. (Cestmir Cepelka and Jamie H.C. Gilmour, "The Application of General International Law in Outer Space," Journal of Air Law and Commerce, vol. 36, no. 1, article 3, 1970, p. 17) To formally deny ownership, as the Imperial family did, is a legally binding form of abandonment of all their rights and royal privileges in regard to it. By definition, such an act of denial is "to [disclaim or] renounce all claim to; to deny ownership of or responsibility for; to disown; to disavow; to reject [it completely]" to the point that all ownership and rights to it are lost. (WikiDiff; 2018: https://wikidiff.com/abandon/disclaim)
A sovereign authority obviously ". . . relinquishes its rights of [reigning or deposed] sovereignty over territory whenever, by any means, it gives them up [by a denial of ownership like the Imperial family did] or [by] renounc[ing] its claim to them . . . [which is an act of] abandonment. . . ." (Charles Cheney Hyde, International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, vol. 1, 1922, p. 191) Legal definitions of abandonment make it clear that what the Imperial Family did was legally unequivocal and final. For example, ". . . abandonment [by definition] requires the intent to relinquish, surrender, and unreservedly give up all claims to the land in question." (State of Oregon v. Thomas Captain, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 12-345, p. 22) This is what the Imperial family did. They gave "up all claims" by denying ownership of what they owned. They manifested "intent" by saying they would not fight it or take legal action to prevent its loss. The following is another example of a legal definition of abandonment showing the same thing, "In law, abandonment is the relinquishment, giving up or renunciation of an interest, claim, civil proceedings, appeal, privilege, possession, or right, especially with the intent of never again resuming or reasserting it." (Big Home Buyer, Abandonment-Definition; 2018: http://bighomebuyer.com/real-estate-terms/abandonment-definition)
Again, by officially denying or disclaiming ownership, the Imperial Family, in spite of actually owning all the legal rights to the principality in international law, gave up, denied or disowned the "claim," the "right," the "interest," the "privilege" and the "possession," and in addition, they added that they would not fight against the loss of their principality. They legally let it go, washed their hands of it or left it in the hands of others to deal with it according to law. Thus, they demonstrated their absolute "renunciation" with "the intent of never again resuming or reasserting it" as required by law. It was permanent disavowal.
Sovereign territory [such as a principality] may not only be acquired [by conveyance among other acquisition modes], it may also be lost. . . . Lost by express declaration [like through the Imperial family’s juridically binding letters] or conduct such as a treaty of cession [the Imperial family’s official letters also qualified, by legal definition, as binding treaties]. . . [or] by acquiescence [negligence, silence or absence of diplomatic protest] through prescription. Further, territory may be abandoned [which also means a total loss of ownership as the Imperial family officially repudiated and renounced owning what they owned]. . . . (Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 5th ed., 2003, pp. 442-443)
Those Princes do likewise forfeit this Sacredness [their royalty], who have either laid down their Dignity [their sovereignty], or have utterly deserted and abandon’d the Kingdom [or principality as in our case]. . . . (Samuel von Pufendorf, Of the Law of Nature and Nations, Book 7, chapter 8, no. 8)
In international law:
Abandonment enables changes in the right to rule and/or who rightfully owns the deposed or de jure territory involved. On an international level, it can activate non-belligerent occupation, non-violent conquest and international prescription law for both de jure non-reigning houses as well as de facto or regnant governments. (See "Non-Reigning Royal Rights can be Transferred to Others under International Law" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality") On a domestic level through private international law, it can activate adverse possession. (See "Private International Law and English Jurisdiction" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges.") In other words, abandonment can legally create profound and permanent changes in ownership.
This abandonment or desertion took place when the Hohenzollerns denied ownership and stated they would not get involved in the English conveyance case or take legal action to prevent it. Thus, the Imperial and Royal House literally and officially denied their right of ownership even though they owned all the international land and regal rights to it under international law. A "denial" of ownership is to renounce it or disclaim any and all rights concerning it. It is a complete and binding repudiation or disavowal of all connection to the legal rights thereof. That is, "denying ownership [as they did] is another common way property [in this case territory] can be [and was] abandoned." (Jacqueline R. Kanovitz, Constitutional Law, 13th ed., 2012, p. 190) Generally, in England and the United States, "denying ownership is sufficient to establish voluntary [intentional] abandonment. . . ." (State Law Reports Office, Washington Reports: 2d Series, vol. 2; volume 159, 2006, p. 412) The result is a permanent loss or forfeiture.
In the October 2, 2002 letter, the attorney officially acting for and in behalf of the head of the Imperial House, declares:
No titles of nobility are “owned” by the Prince as the head of the Former Royal family of Prussia or other Royal families in Germany since the German Constitution of 1919 (Constitution of Weimar) is in order, according to which titles of nobility are no longer allowed to be awarded. (emphasis added)
"Noble" is legally interpreted in the Germany to include de jure or deposed regal and sovereign rights as well as lesser nobiliary rights.
The above quote, from the official letter of the attorney, is a clear, unequivocal legal statement that denies any ownership of the rights to the principality, or any other principality for that matter. It is based on domestic German constitutional law that declares that only the current domestic government owns the right to rule. To make this point clear, the legal representative and general secretary to the House of Hohenzollern states that people generally should already know that the Hohenzollern's do not own the rights to these principalities by adding, "This . . . should be known to everybody who is involved wither [whether] historically or in view of legalicy [legality] and law." Obviously, denial of ownership is present in this legal act made in behalf of the Head of the Imperial and Royal House, it could hardly be more obvious.
English land law, which includes the law of the conveyances and the law of adverse possession, is mostly made up of “judge made law” where precedence and common law is king and statute is interpreted. Hence, from the book Landmark Cases in Land Law, we find:
As can be seen from the judgment in Benn v Hardinge, there are two elements to abandonment: (i) some overt act or non-act which indicates that the owner has physically left or discarded the property; and (ii) a clear intention by the owner to relinquish all rights of ownership whilst being indifferent as to what happens to the property afterwards. (Emma Warring, "Benn v Hardinge (1993)," Landmark Cases in Land Law, Simon Douglas, Robin Hickey, and Emma Waring, eds., 2015 and LawBrain, Abandonment; 2016: http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Abandonment)
When one denies ownership for something that is owned, it is an "overt act" of disavowal wherein ownership is "discarded" or thrown away. Showing the required "clear intention by the owner to relinquish all rights of ownership whilst being indifferent as to what happens to the property afterwards," note in the same letter, the attorney declares, "As a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany he [the head of the House] whishes [wishes] to keep distance from matters of this kind." In other words, "The Prince does not wish to take action. . . ." against the legal English conveyance document selling his international land rights to the principality in England under international and English domestic "contract law." (See "Contract Law" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") In other words, clear "intention" was communicated as well as an "indifference" as to what takes place in England concerning the future of the principality. All the elements of abandonment are clearly there.
This letter being a "juridical act" had the immediately legal effect of abandonment. Time is not a factor in such things. From the book Landmark Cases in Land Law we learn that, "In Crossley and Sons v Lightowler the court held that time was ‘not a necessary element in a question of abandonment. . . .’" (Ibid.) In other words, abandonment can be accomplished instantly. All that is needed is the presence of an official or "juridical act," which, in this case, also qualifies as a treaty under international "treaty law." Such an act also activates the legal principle of "estoppel" in both international and English law. This means that the denial and abandonment statements cannot be retracted, because it was relied upon – a necessary element of estoppel. (See "reliance" in "Estoppel" on the web page "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") In other words, one cannot go back on his or her word. It is binding.
A person's intention to abandon his or her property may be established by express language to that effect [as demonstrated in these letters] or it may be implied from the circumstances surrounding the owner's treatment of the property. . . . (LawBrain, Abandonment; 2016: http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Abandonment)
That is, ". . . an intention to abandon . . . need not be expressed [but] may be gathered from the circumstances. . . ." (Charles Henry Huberich, The Political and Legislative History of Liberia: a Documentary History of Liberia, 1947, p. 251) In the letters, not only the express language of abandonment, as it is legally defined, but the same can be implied by their actions. The Royal House did not protest, or take legal action against the English conveyance of their de jure property rights. They were "indifferent" about it, which is consistent with the fact that they already denied holding any ownership rights over the principality, because they didn't care. Hence, they waived all rights.
. . . . Every proprietor who for a long time and without any just reason neglects his right, should be presumed to have entirely renounced and abandoned it. This is what forms the absolute presumption (juris et de jure) of its abandonment, -- a presumption, upon which another person [the subsequent government or next highest right holder] is legally entitled to appropriate to himself the thing so abandoned. (Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 2, chapter 11, no. 141)
The Royal House of Hohenzollern, in effect, threw away their rights to it and declared they had no interest in "taking action" to protect it, or get involved in what was going on legally concerning it in England. True to their word, they did not take any action. And if they did, it would have been to no avail, because of their official denial of ownership, wherein they estopped themselves, or legally thwarted any possibility of success. In addition, adverse possession, now being complete, permanently bars any action to reclaim any right to the principality. The laws were made to make such transfers conclusive and final.
As a review, abandonment has powerful legal implications. For example, abandoned tangible property, or discarded intangible property rights, are ". . . deemed to have been returned, so to speak, to the common mass and to belong to the one who first assumes possession . . . and the former owner can assert no [further] claims thereto." (Aigler, Rights of Finders, 21 Mich. L.Rev. 664 in William T. Fryer, Readings in Personal Property, 368) Also, ". . . The first person who takes possession of abandoned property acquires title that is valid against the world, including the prior owner." (§ 4.04 Rights of Finder Against Original Owner, 2013: http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/prop/index_Full.asp)
"The law of nations . . . expressly states that goods which belong to no owner pass to the occupier." (De Indis, Vitoria, Vitoria, Political Writings, A. Pagden and J. Lawrence, translators, 1919, pp. xxiv-xv)In other words, "Abandoned property belongs to the finder." (D. Barlow Burke and Joseph A. Snoe, Property: Examples & Explanations, 3rd ed., 2008, p. 35) However, real property doesn't become the immediate property of a possessor. Adverse possession laws are one of the vehicle of new ownership. (See others transfer modes that apply -- "Conclusion")
Abandonment in international law is juridical. It is a conclusive and legally binding act which stands independent of any kind of outside judicial or legal involvement. Vattel explains:
. . . the law of nature ordained that all men should respect the right of private property in him who makes use of it? For the same reason, therefore, the same law requires that every proprietor who for a long time and without any just reason neglects his right, should be presumed to have entirely renounced and abandoned it. This is what forms the absolute presumption (juris et de jure) of its abandonment, -- a presumption, upon which another person [the subsequent government or the holder of the second highest right to it] is legally entitled to appropriate to himself the thing so abandoned. (Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 2, chapter 11, no. 141)
But abandonment is final and certain. "An abandonment of property, or a right, divests the title and ownership of the [former] owner as fully and completely as would a conveyance," or, as fully and completely as though it were sold and he or she, the former owner, no longer owns it or has any claim to it. (1 Corpus Juris Secundum §12, n. 71) That is, ". . . that very Moment, in which [a sovereign house or polity] renounce their Right, [they] have no longer any thing to do with the Sovereignty [they abandoned]." (Samuel Pufendorf, Of the Law of Nature and Nations, Book 7, chapter 3, no. 8, 1729 ed.) Adverse possession is built around abandonment and/or neglect, which is what literally took place.
As in our claim, ". . . in cases in which the true owner has, to the knowledge of the adverse possessor, abandoned the land," not as much proof is required to complete and establish the transfer of all rights of ownership to the possessor. (Martin Dixon, Modern Land Law, 8th ed., 2012, p. 447) "Squatting [claiming or possessing] abandoned properties has a long tradition in the UK." (Garry Crystal, The Facts on Unclaimed Land and Property in the UK; 2015: http://www.unclaimedfinances.co.uk/facts-unclaimed-land-property-uk.html) The chief purpose of "the rules of prescription (or adverse possession) serve the state to make legal the possession of abandoned property. . . ." (Francesco Francioni and James Gordley, Enforcing International Cultural Heritage Law, footnote 9, 2013, p. 179) That is its major reason for existence, that is, to ensure the good use, ownership and benefit of all the land or property.
In addition, morally and ethically, "in the case of abandonment, there is no usurpation [no theft, no robbery, no one was cheated out] of sovereignty [or property rights] since there are no contemporaneous [or competing] claims." (James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed., 2008, p. 230) There is only one claim -- the adverse possessor's right to ownership, which is sustained by law to be absolute and conclusive.
Alienation or abandonment is so important in transferring sovereign rights and entitlements in international law that it is mentioned as part of "The modes of acquiring Kingdoms [or a principality in this case] under the Law of Nations are: Election, Succession, Conquest, Alienation and Prescription." (Johann Wolfgang Textor, Synopsis of the Law of Nations, vol. 2, 1680, p. 77) (emphasis added) Abandonment enables and empowers major changes in the right to rule and/or who rightfully owns the deposed or de jure territory involved. (See "Abandonment" in "In addition, Two more Legally Binding Methods Transferred all the Rights to the Principality")
Deposed de jure or legal sovereignty are both a private law rights as well as public law rights. Whereas, reigning sovereignty is exclusively under public jurisdiction, deposed sovereignty is governed by both public and private law. As a direct result, both private law transfer methods, and public law modes of conveyance, had the full legal power to transfer all the honors, privileges and distinctions of the principality of Halberstadt. (See "Public and Private Law as it relates to the Transfer of the Principality of Halberstadt" in "The Public and Non-Public Use of Titles in International Law")
It is most impressive that not just one or two, but eight different, equally binding acquisition modes, unitedly and perfectly transferred the principality and all its regal rights to the Goff/Harradine family. These laws are listed as follows along with the dates when they were achieved:
The transfer is an established fact -- each of the above perfected the change in ownership in its own unique way.
This claim is as sure as any other royal claim that ever existed on the earth. It is that profound. Our case could hardly be stronger.
In fact, we also qualified for four more valid international transfer modes, "novation," "consolidation of title," "highest entitlement on earth on an international level," and "international proprietary estoppel" as well. Since each is composed of similar principles involved in most of the other acquisition laws mentioned above, we have not listed them. Nevertheless, this means there are, in fact, four more powerful witnesses to the truth of the transfer. There is now a total of twelve valid domestic and international conveyance methods involved. Novation and consolidation of title are explained on the web page: "A Seventh and an Eighth Method also Transferred all the Rights and Privileges" and international proprietary estoppel and international highest right on earth is described in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality")
The grand and obvious conclusion is that this is one of the most profoundly certain claims on earth based on verified, confirmed and extensive evidence. (See The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim")
It would be a lot more comfortable to operate below the radar, merely claim our rights privately, and not stick our necks out, but international law requires or obligates that one publicly assert his or her rights or lose them. In other words, to maintain what is considered to be of great value and worth to us personally, we must obey the law. By this means, it is possible to preserve deposed legal sovereignty from generation to generation, but such obedience ". . . imposes on him an obligation to make known his rights." (Hugo Grotius, The Law of Nations, Book II, chapter 11, no. 141) (See "Maintaining Deposed Sovereignty and De jure Ownership" on this website or "DEPOSED SOVEREIGNTY AND ROYALTY: How to Preserve it and How it can be Lost" at http://www.nobility-royalty.com/the_sovereign_rights_of_deposed_kings__monarchs_and_sovereign_princes.htm and also Dr. Kerr's book The Entitlement to Rule: Legal, Non-Territorial Sovereignty in International Law at http://www.the-entitlement-to-rule.com)
The Law of Nations also requires or behooves one to provide solid proof, or a claim is considered to be no better than a family fairy tale, a phony pretense, or mere make believe. Thus, we have this website to fulfill these two important legal mandates: a public presence and solid proof, which proof was certified as valid by legal experts and the numerous citations and explanations of legally verified facts as found throughout this website. (For the requirement of proof, see "Proof is Necessary" in "The Law makes the Difference between an Authentic and a Fraudulent Claim," and "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim")
Even though Halberstadt is a small sovereign regal entity, the ownership of ". . . sovereignty is not of like character with other things, rather, in its exalted rank, it far exceeds other things." (Hugo Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 12, no. I) It is something truly magnificent -- there is something supreme and wonderful about it, which is above most things in life. ". . . The ruler or sovereign of a State [reigning or deposed] is, in international law, . . . considered as representing, in his person, [all] its sovereign dignity [honor and glory] . . . ." (William Teulon Swan Stallybrass, A Society of States,Sovereignty, 1919, p. 32) The point is, "All the majesty of the nation resides in the person of the prince. . . ." (Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book I, chapter 15, no. 188) "Every thing that emanates from the throne ought to bear the character of purity, nobleness, and greatness." (Ibid.)
However, ownership of a real sovereign title does not make a man important, great, or good deep inside himself. Truly noble people are people with integrity, good works and compassion for what is right. We highly value what we have, but true nobility or inner greatness is earned, not bestowed, conveyed or transferred.
Our house rules mandate that no knighthoods will be conferred on non-family members, no titles will be given out to people outside of the family, nothing of regal importance will be sold or bartered. The claims, although public titles under international law, will not be flaunted, although they must be used as required by law. (See "Maintaining Deposed Sovereignty and De jure Ownership")
For those unfamiliar with the legal concepts discussed herein, which is most of us, it is extremely easy to misunderstand what is written on this website. To avoid such, you are cordially invited to ask questions and make comments. We also welcome corrections.