The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim
(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.
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 verified 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)
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 "Eight Legal and Lawful Methods Transferred all the Rights")
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 confirmed and reliable 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.
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 itís 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.
_______(End of Brief Foreword)_______
The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim
Contents: (Every section and subsection in one way or another provides verified evidence of the truth)
The Certainty of the Claim
Preponderance of Evidence is the lowest level of confidence (practically 50/50) allowed in courts of law -- the highest is beyond reasonable doubt or above a 90%. This case has achieved the highest level possible; that is, for all practical purposes 100%, or as certain as any valid case can be in this life.
Admissibility of Evidence (Rules of Evidence)
In a court of law:
If a party offers evidence that's not likely to prove or disprove an issue material to the outcome, the evidence is not relevant and is inadmissible by definition.
If a party offers evidence that's not worthy of being relied upon as true for one reason or another, the evidence is not credible and may not be considered.
If a party offers evidence that's privileged (e.g., communications between a client and her lawyer) the evidence is protected from being divulged to the court.
If a party offers evidence likely to confuse, mislead, anger, shock, or frighten, or if it's being offered merely to waste the court's valuable time, it may be excluded on the grounds of being more prejudicial [hurtful] than probative [helpful] . (American Justice Foundation, Evidence; 2019: http://www.americanjusticefoundation.com)
Based on these rules, all the evidence submitted in this website are admissible and confirmed as valid. That is, everything is:
Relevant: they prove legal facts that are material to the case,
Credible: each is reliable and confirmed as valid and legitimate,
Not privileged: nothing is in need of protection as sensitive facts (e.g., attorney-client privilege),
Not prejudiced: there is no tendency to confuse, mislead, or waste time. Each is designed to make the law clear and the conclusions obvious.
In other words, all the evidence is material, relevant, and credible, as well as being verified as legitimate and having legal standing and import.
Proof in General:
Proof is central to finding truth, but it is all too often highly subjective and personal, rather than being objective, scientific and reasonable. This is because people see things so differently such that "one man's meat is another man's poison," or stated similarly, "one man's junk is another man's treasure." It is generally conceded that the perception of what is actual proof is highly subject to personal bias. That is, what is proof to one person is insignificant to others. Evidence can be interpreted so differently because of a lack of knowledge, bad information, etc. Therefore, we decided to put our evidence to the test through objective probability and see how profound and powerful it is as a claim for the sake of others. The result confirmed that our case is actually more certain and sure than what is normally possible.
The Heart and Soul of Science:
All reliable scientific pronouncements are nothing more or less than probability. Nothing is considered absolute in science. All that we really have according to the fundamental doctrines and principles of science are likelihood's. Nothing ever is certain. For example, you cannot prove gravity is universal. You can only say it is extremely probable that it is a universal as all experiments and measures to date say so, and we have no evidence to the contrary. But most people do not know that "Physics [among other true hard sciences] is not a body of indisputable and immutable truth; it is a body of well-supported probable opinion only. . . ." (Anthony Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, 1950) (emphasis added) ". . . The entire system of human knowledge is connected with [probability]." (Pierre-Simon Laplace, Marquis de Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, 2012, p. 1) "[For] nearly all our knowledge . . . the principle means for ascertaining truth . . . are based on probabilities. . . ." (Ibid.) It is the life and soul of discerning between truth and error. The points is:
Everything is a probability, but some possibilities are so miniscule [so small and insignificant) that they arenít worth considering. [For example] itís possible that all the air in the room will spontaneously clump in the middle in the shape of a unicorn. But donít hold your breath (unless, of course, all the air in the room [actually] clumps in the middle in the shape of a unicorn). (Tom Margolis, Quora, "Is gravity a certainty or probability?;" 2016: https://www.quora.com/Is-gravity-a-certainty-or-probability) (emphasis added)
Then others have such a solid high degree of certainty, that you can count on it and even stake your life on it. That is, it can be relied on to be as solid as the ground upon which one stands. The point is, our case is extremely powerful "as is," and when looked at through the eyes of mathematical probability, it becomes far more evident or blatantly obvious to any reasonable and honest observer. This is because all the evidence points in that direction. The supporting legal facts and details are on other pages on this website, but a summary of facts is below.
Reasonable and Non-Reasonable Doubt Explained
But what about doubt? Where does doubt come in? What is its relationship to the legal standard of being above or "beyond a reasonable doubt?" What is universally accepted and upheld as rational, as truth that is "beyond any reasonable doubt?" Unrealistic or senseless doubts are not productive and do not lead to truth, one of the most precious and important things on earth.
It is obviously unreasonable to believe that the sun will not come up in the morning, that gravity will fail or that the world is flat. It is also unreasonable to think that your parents are not really the people who brought you up unless that were true. The fact is, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that cannot be doubted.
Doubt, on an emotional level, is indecision between belief and disbelief. It is not reality. It is not objective, scientific, factual, logical or rational. It is emotional, fickle, unstable and subjective. Such unsubstantiated doubt is not truth unless it can be backed up by reliable evidence or hard facts. For example, we can doubt that Africa exists. But is that doubt reasonable? Is it sensible? Unless it can be verified as accurate and reliable, it is unrealistic and unproductive to deny that Africa exists.
The point is, there is no requirement on earth that something be proven "beyond all possible doubt," because people can doubt anything. Therefore, the standard of proof for a claim, or capital case, in this life is what is realistically "beyond any [sensible, rational or logical] doubt" -- not that doubt cannot exist. A rational doubt is not mere possible doubt, again, people can doubt anything. It is just irrational.
Unrealistic or unscientific doubt will ignore the evidence and be overly influenced by their own biases especially against what is new, unique or unpopular. The legal test of truth is what would a reasonable person accept. That is, what would an unbiased, objective person accept as valid and believable.
A definition of this level of high confidence is proof, based on reason and common sense achieved after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, that a reasonable person would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation. It does not mean an absolute certainty, as no proof is absolutely perfect and without flaws, but it is so sure any rational person would not doubt it, but support and subscribe to it. And when a case has achieved the level of mathematical certainty, as ours has, it is extremely unreasonable and irrational to throw it out and not recognize that this case is as reasonable as any authentic or royal claim that ever existed.
Our case is most obviously "beyond any reasonable doubt." This is the highest standard of proof one can reasonably expect in this world. It means the claim could hardly be anything other than authentic, genuine and true. In fact, it is so profound, it is more likely that a gorilla will knock on your door tonight and sing you a Christmas Carol than this claim does not represent what is actually true. The probability, based on solid facts, is clear, specific and unequivocal.
The Probability of our Claim being True and Accurate:
If you think about it, what is the probability that buying the shaky, or unsure rights to an incorporeal and corporeal hereditary principality in the year 2000 would eventually result in full and complete ownership of those regal land rights in international law? This will be answered using the objective laws of probability.
To remove doubt in researching topics of importance, as stated by Roger Bacon, ". . . it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge [or a case such as ours] in[to] mathematics." (Stuart Shanker, Wittgenstein and the Turning Point in the Philosophy of Mathematics, 1987 p. 269) By so doing, we can see how certain or uncertain a claim really is. Hence, the rigorous rules of probability were applied to this case. They show the claim is not merely a "preponderance of evidence" case making it "more likely than not," but it is nothing less than a verifiable mathematical certainty based on solid facts.
The question was, "What are the chances that all these facts would combine to bear witness that our claim is absolutely true, if it wasn't absolutely and perfectly 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.
In order to apply mathematical probability to the situation, we had to take confirmed absolute facts -- each of which is "beyond reasonable doubt," and give each a "more likely than not" rating or a 50/50 chance of being true or false similar to a coin toss will be either heads or tails. This watered down each fact, but this had to be done to be able to quantify and then measure the statistical likelihood that our claim is more than just a normal claim, but is, in fact, far beyond any reasonable doubt.
In quantifying the verified evidence, each item had to be assigned a 50/50 chance. However, 50/50 is not fair because each item of proof is a fact "beyond reasonable doubt." Each is whole and complete. In other words, we had to water the proof down in order to quantify it for the purpose of creating a probability calculation. Hence, the likelihood that our claim is true is far stronger than
we have stressed.
Since there are eight different legal and unique modes that transferred the principality, not every item of proof listed below are essential or critical to the outcome. Only one of the transfer methods could convey the regal rights and privileges of this sovereign entity. Each mode is well-established and powerful. Obviously, each individual fact all by itself does not create the transfer, but put together, they are mathematically conclusive and definitive. This illustrates a well-known legal principle -- the holistic approach, which is used in adverse possession and myriads of other evidence considerations. That is:
. . . the weight of the aggravate [the complete whole] of many such pieces of evidence taken together is very much greater [almost infinitely so in our case] than the sum of the weight of each such piece of evidence taken separately. (Lord Advocate v Lord Blantyre (1879) 4 App Cas 770 at 792)
This principle is called "synergism" -- the meaning is that every factor works together or "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." This universal precept works in law, organizations, social science, physics, the human body and other specialties. It can be seen in the combination of laws and circumstances that created the transfer of the rights and ownership of Halberstadt.
Probability in General:
Probability can be no greater than the validity of the evidence that is used to calculate it. The facts are the building blocks that establish or ruin a case. It all depends on how strong and sturdy or how fragile and weak the evidence is. That is, each individual fact is either dependable and true, half-true or entirely false. In order to make it clear that each fact is indeed fully a verified fact, we have given legal citations and provided ways to read more about each law.
Each of the following 40+ facts are reliable, admissible, and valid. That is, each law exists and is legally binding in corporeal reality, and each circumstance can be verified and confirmed as authentic, real and genuine. This website is filled with the proof that all 40+ evidences are absolutely true. The legal citations, quotes and explanations for each law and a history for each circumstance demonstrate this.
The point is, every one of the 40+ evidences are proven facts and even if we only take 24 of them, we still come up with a "beyond reasonable doubt" mathematical determination. The probability is so extremely high that it achieves virtual certainty. There is no other logical explanation for all the existing legal items. They unitedly provide an undeniably profound and powerful witness of its truth.
The Most Prominent Facts:
None of the following details were known or anticipated ahead of time. They were discovered. Everything merely fell into place, which makes their likelihood, the probability, quite amazing and actually much bigger than the final level of probability we ended up with. Nevertheless, ignoring some of the evidence and being highly conservative in only awarding a 50/50 chance to absolute facts, the combination of all the facts and circumstances creates a situation that is greater than the mandatory "beyond reasonable doubt" level of sureness, which are required for capital cases where life and death are in the balance. This is the highest degree of evidence required for cases worldwide.
Most of the following items individually sustained the final ownership of the principality. Combined, they establish it. Each of the items is 100% perfect, whole and complete. The arbitrary 50/50 designation was merely used in order to quantify the numbers so we could apply probability to the case.
The 30+ unexpected and unlikely items all came together in legally transferring ownership to us. The probability that all these things combined, which had to happen for it to be accomplished, is nothing less than mathematically amazing. Nevertheless, it all happened, which means the transfer actually did take place and is an established fact.
Each item was discovered item by item or little by little. We did not know they all existed and would combine together to create the transfer of all the rights, privileges and distinctions of the principality. It was to our surprise, our delight and amazement that everything worked out. But as demonstrated, the law does not require that we knew what we were doing. It only obligates that the requirements be fulfilled, which they were to a higher degree than is required by law. (See "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")
The final outcome is "beyond any reasonable doubt." It does not mean that no one could possibly doubt it, rather it means that a reasonable, objective, unbiased person would not doubt it, because it is built of a foundation of solid undeniable facts -- most of which were mandatory for adverse possession to turn the factual possession of land and regal rights into a complete and binding ownership.
The following are not listed in importance or organized according to their proper time-frame. Each is only very briefly described. References to other web pages are provided for the reader to better acquaint him or herself with each item in greater detail along with the substantiation or validating evidence for each item listed below. This website is filled with legal proof of the claim's validity. All the legal basis have been covered in the website, but the following list only mentions some of those laws, etc.
2. It is a fact that a "Deed of Transfer" was created for the Principality of Halberstadt as a legal English document, which was lawfully legalized by an apostille and upheld by an expensive and thorough investigation by Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) (2004-2008) to be a valid legal deed of conveyance that could not be proved to be either fraudulent or provide "good" title to the property.
5. It is a fact that I found enough indirect evidence of the conveyance's possible validity, when everything was so well hidden, that I would be convinced to continue the claim, or continue to "factually possess" all of the principality's regal rights. The reason is that I thought that the conveyance claim would eventually be proven, so I continued to claim ownership from the year 2000 and never let up. I pushed very hard legally for English authorities to make the broker and solicitor involved provide that proof of its validity as they promised. I discovered later that the continued claim and legal efforts I made enabled adverse possession to govern the situation. I did this in spite of the knowledge that, although a valid deed existed, but that the sales contract itself could not provide "good title" to the property. I discovered this in 2001.
6. It is a fact that English common law or legal precedence -- sometimes titled "judge made law," had established that if a conveyance claim "factually" continued could automatically, by law, become an English adverse possession claim provided, of course, that all the other required terms were fulfilled. This well-established law switched the claim from being a conveyance claim to a legitimate and valid adverse possession claim. (See "Forward (g)," "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") This took place along with all the other items mentioned above and below to powerfully sustaining the certainty of the final outcome.
7. It is a fact that Imperial and Royal House of Hohenzollern actually denied owning the Principality in 2002 in spite of the fact that they actually owned it on an international level. Thus legal abandonment and the fact that our adverse possession claim started in 2001 left us as the only legal, lawful and rightful claim to the principality on earth. (See "Abandonment" in "Letters from the Imperial Family")
8. It is also a fact that the Imperial and Royal House abdicated all their rights to the conveyance in 2002 and handed it over to English law by declaring that they would not interfere, protest or have any dealings with the outcome of whatever English law concluded. (See "Letters from the Imperial Family") This was officially and formally made explicit through commissioned House attorneys who represented the head of the House.
9. It is a fact that these letters of the Imperial and Royal House were written in such away that they would qualify as "juridical acts" or be legally binding actions. (See "Juridical Acts" on the web page "Letters from the Imperial Family") This can easily be confirmed by legal definition and the attorney's letters while representing the head of the House of Hohenzollern.
10. It is, in addition, a fact that international and English "estoppel" law did apply to their actions and thus solidifying both the abandonment and abdication of rights to English law and authority. All of these things opened the door for the transfer because it made it legally binding. (See "Estoppel" under "English Jurisdiction and Authority" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
11. It is a fact that all the international and English requirements for "reliance" were fulfilled activating the binding impact of both international and English estoppel. We knew nothing of the law, but unwittingly did what was necessary for estoppel to become part of the equation and make the abandonment and abdication of the Imperial House both binding and irreversible. (See "Estoppel" under "English Jurisdiction and Authority" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
12. And it is a fact the letters of the Imperial House were also written in such a way that they constituted internationally valid treaties under treaty law. This, even more powerfully, made their official letters have great binding power and impact. (See "Treaty Law" on the web page "Letters from the Imperial Family")
13. It is a fact that a thorough and expensive investigation (over $300,000 USD) by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales (SRA) were not be able to prove that the conveyance was either fraudulent or authentic. This fact was important, because if the conveyance were fraudulent, adverse possession could not have succeeded or been applicable to the situation.
14. It is a fact that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal of 2008 upheld the Deed of Transfer as valid legal document, but that Deed could not convey "good title" or ownership. Adverse possession could not apply, if the conveyance conveyed "good title." There would be no need for adverse possession if the transfer already took place by a lawful and valid deed or contract of sale, but because the conveyance did not transfer the title and rights, adverse possession could and did. In other words, the Deed could not be either fraudulent as stated in number 13 or provide "good title." If either situation was the case, an adverse possession claim would fail under the rules as they presently exist. These are important facts in the case.
15. It is again a fact of the case, that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal of 2008 supported, upheld and sustained English jurisdiction over a Germany deposed principality. Simply put, German domestic law did not apply to an international regal land right of a former sovereign entity. Therefore, German law was irrelevant, but English law applied and was recognized by the Tribunal to apply. Without the jurisdiction of English law, or legal authority, English adverse possession, obviously, could not legally transfer the rights to the principality. Jurisdiction was necessary, which legal rights started in the year 2000 with the English Deed and its Statutory Declarations.
16. It is a fact that English legal jurisdiction had expanded and been enlarged through the years to hold extra-territorial rights over foreign or international land claims in circumstances such as ours, thus again providing the legal mechanism or framework for the lawful transfer of the principality through adverse possession. (See "Private International Law (English Legal Jurisdiction)" under "English Jurisdiction and Authority" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges" and "Adverse Possession Applies" on the same page) This is an undeniable and important fact.
17. It is a fact that the attorneys, solicitors, the Queens barrister and the English tribunal findings involved in the case in both England and America all declared that England had full jurisdiction over the ownership question of the principality. (See "Evidence: Legal Documents and Letters" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") In other words, all the legal authorities involved in the case recognized English authority and jurisdiction as applicable.
18. Along with English private international law, normal domestic law in England, and most common law countries, have the full authority over the 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") This meant that the domestic laws of adverse possession, proprietary estoppel and holding the highest right of ownership above all others on earth were just as valid and legitimate as the international laws in establishing the claim as strictly authentic.
29. It is a fact an expensive expert attorney's legal challenge for and in behalf of the broker to take back our rights to the principality in a U. S. Federal Court would utterly fail primarily because of a lack of legal jurisdiction, which the attorney involved should have known beforehand. (See "5. What contributions did the three courts provide?" in "Questions and Answers") This was scary, but it turned out that we were protected by the law.
30. It is a fact that, in international law, transfers of royal sovereignty through wills, gifts, sale and purchase and other means, although not generally known, is not only still legal and rightful for a proprietary monarchy, but was a common practice that is still legally valid today. (See "Sovereign Honors and Rights can be Transferred") Yet, this is an undeniable legal reality readily admitted in international law.
32. It is a fact that I discovered adverse possession and all these other laws and requirements little by little, and unwittingly or without knowing the law obeyed each and every one of their mandates, which were critical to the transfer. Otherwise, the transfer would not have taken place. Yet, this is exactly what happened.
33. It is a fact that I would become the senior editor of Dr. Kerr's book, which taught me all the laws that govern deposed royal houses and dispossessed sovereignty in international law, and how regal rights can be permanently lost as well as rightfully obtained and legally preserved for thousands of years. (See The Entitlement to Rule: Legal, Non-Territorial Sovereignty in International Law at http://www.the-entitlement-to-rule.com) Yet, this happened and it taught me the truth, which was the key to opening the door of knowledge.
34. It is a fact that when Parliament of England and Wales went to revamp and redo the law in regard to adverse possession in 2002 yet they did not change anything as pertaining to unregistered land -- which is the law that covers the international land rights pertaining to the principality. (See "Two Major Laws are Most Important to this Case" on the web page "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") This is an historical and legal parliamentary fact which paved the way to ownership.
35. It is a fact that I could qualify for adverse possession without "actual possession" of the land. The point is, it was discovered that "actual possession" does not require or obligated actual possession. Rather "factual possession" is what is legally necessary. (See "Factual Legal Possession" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") The case fully qualified for factual possession.
36. It is a fact that not only is adverse possession designed to be flexible, inclusive and accommodating, but English private international law is as well; such that, English law has full and complete authority to include a de jure international land ownership right and the transfer of all the rights, privileges and ownership of said Principality. (See "Adverse Possession Applies," "De jure Corporeal Land Ownership in International Law" and "Private International Law and English Jurisdiction" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") All the listed items powerfully and undeniably sustain the claim.
37. It is also a fact that ". . . the paper ownerís title will be extinguished automatically. . . . (Rebecca Day, Property: Adverse possession; 2016: http://rebeccakday-lawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/adverse-possession.html) (emphasis added) That is, if the law required court or other legal involvement as in other countries, our financial situation would have eliminated our chance to complete the transfer and enjoy the full rights to the principality. But since ownership rights change automatically once the limitation period is complete, this was not a problem, but opened up the door for everything to take place as it did.
38. It is a fact that since the conveyance claim failed, the law provided a better way for the transfer of all the rights and distinctions of the principality, that is, once the limitation period has expired and all the requirement were fulfilled that the "[the claimant's] possession becomes impregnable [unassailable or unimpeachable] giving him title superior to all others [on earth]. (Buckinghamshire CC v Moran, 1999, per Nourse L. J. as quoted in Kevin J. Gray and Susan Francis Gray, Land Law, 5th ed., 2007, p. 126)
39. It is a known fact that in private international law, the rule of situ on immovables, which would normally apply to almost all situations, would not apply to deposed or de jure international land right (les rei sitae), but only to reigning de facto nations and their territorial lands. (See "Private International Law and English Jurisdiction" under "Permanent Binding Laws" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") This is just another of so many unrelated laws that surprisingly have combined in establishing our claim. In other words, all pertinent laws have powerfully supported our claim, and no relevant law has denied, barred or has been in opposition to its fulfillment.
40. It is a basic historical and legal fact that commoners can become royal and hold the right or entitlement to rule. This is a basic fact, yet few people understand it, because few people know the laws that surround and govern both regnant and deposed sovereignty. The truth of the matter is that every royal house today started off as commoners who eventually, in some way or another, became a regal line of reigning monarchs. It is an undeniable fact that this has happened not only in the past, but in the present by both ancient and modern laws. (See "Private Individuals can become Royal Sovereigns" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality")
41. Anything that can be owned, can be conveyed, sold or otherwise transferred to another person, whether the land only exists only on an international level or is domestically valid. In other words, this right to transfer sovereign territories includes both reigning and non-reigning sovereign entities, both of which equally involve the transfer of the supreme right to rule. (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")
42. It is a fact that another legally powerful or additional way sovereignty was fully transferred. This was through the 2002 legal abandonment and the international law of "non-belligerent occupation." Just as "prescription" in international law governs both reigning and deposed sovereignty, so too the law of occupation and abandonment are binding in regard to de jure (deposed or non-reigning) sovereignty as well as de facto (regnant or reigning) sovereignty. This mode of legal transfer took place because in 2002, we legally held in rem constructive or factual possession -- the highest right to the land and titles on earth immediately after the official abandonment took place. At that point, the non-territorial sovereignty rights automatically became ours, by the international law of occupation. (See "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality")
44. It is again a fact that a third, but related legal mechanism conveyed proprietary ownership of all the deposed international royal and sovereign entitlements of Halberstadt. This took place because English judge-made or common law automatically transfers faulty sales contracts into adverse possession, which, in turn, automatically gives to the possessor the second highest right to the land on earth or in rem. This took place in 2001, Then in 2002, when the Imperial and Royal House of Hohenzollern legally and officially abandoned ownership rights, we immediately had the highest right on earth to the legal, non-territorial sovereignty rights and entitlements to the principality and all its honors and de jure privileges and distinctions. (See "3rd Legal Transfer of Rights 2002: Highest Entitlement on Earth" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality")
49. Violent conquest has been outlawed basically since the end of World War II. But non-violent conquest is still viable and permissible in international law. The only requirement is that acts of appropriate sovereignty are maintained at the time of the victory and onward. Non-violent conquest was consummated in 2002 through the abandonment of the deposed sovereign principality and the fact that constructive possession had been achieved before the abandonment. For a legal, non-territorial sovereign entity, acts of sovereignty are to consistently use the titles and sovereign arms of the deposed territory to preserve de jure rights. (See "The Fifth Legal Transfer of Rights: Non-Violent Conquest" in "In addition, Two more Legally Binding Methods Transferred all the Rights to the Principality")
50. When there is a juridical binding abandonment, there is no waiting period for prescriptive law to transfer all rights, because we had established constructive possession or the second highest legal right on earth to the principality before the principality was abandoned. That is, an automatic and immediate transfer took place. The same is true for both non-violent conquest and non-belligerent occupation. The effect is instantaneous, but acts of sovereignty must continue to keep the rights alive. This again means to always use one's titles and arms as required. (See "The Sixth Legal Transfer of Rights--International Prescriptive Law" in "In addition, Two more Legally Binding Methods Transferred all the Rights to the Principality" and "Maintaining Deposed Sovereignty and De jure Ownership")
51. Just like adverse possession, in international law, non-belligerent occupation, non-violent conquest and international prescription combined with abandonment are not accomplished through court or legal involvement of any kind, but are automatically effective and final when all the requirements are met. (See the "Automatic Nature of Adverse Possession in English Law" and "Court Involvement is not Required for any International or Domestic Law to Effect Changes in Sovereignty" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality")
52. It is another well-known legal fact that recognition is immaterial to the possession of authentic and genuine sovereignty and true royal honors and distinctions. If it is legally real and authentic, it does not matter if others acknowledge it or not. (See "Recognition is Immaterial or Irrelevant to the Situation" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality")
56. It is extremely significant that no law or laws exist that are relevant to this case refute the binding transfer. Instead, all such laws support and sustain it. In other words, no other logical or reasonable conclusion can be derived from the facts of this case but that all the royal rights and privileges of Halberstadt were given to us.
58. Because annexation ". . . can have very different cause and take different forms . . ." the incorporation or possession of the rights, plus the relinquishment of the Imperial family of all ownership, amounted to one of the legal and valid forms of annexation as defined in international law.
59. It is highly significant and indeed conclusive that eight, not just one, but eight valid and legitimate transfer modes, through both private and public international law, gave us the international rights to the principality.
60. If there were a dispute, the legal "critical date" would have to include all the conveyance modes and supporting laws that protect the rights of the Goff/Harradine family. Legally, the "critical date" would be extremely protective, because nothing, no act after 2014 would be admissible, but everything before that date, (all eight modes and legal protections), which add up to a far "beyond any reasonable doubt" case, would count. Since there is an enormous amount of verified legal proof for our case and none against it before 2014, the case for the validity of our claim is final and the conclusion is set in rock solid legal cement.
65. Lastly, it is a fact that all others laws and circumstances that took place, not mentioned in this brief summary, also add their weight and witness to the accomplished legal transfer.
What is amazing is that all the above took place as a complete surprise. Everything lined up. Every door opened. Every law and circumstance combined to effect the transfer. Without knowing what we were doing, we actually complied with all the requirements, obligations and laws. Everything, without failure, fit the legal pattern common to an English adverse possession case, proprietary estoppel, highest right law, non-belligerent occupation, non-violent conquest, prescriptive law and cession. It all worked out unbeknown to us, which also fits with the law. For example, if a claimant:
We continued to possessed and legally occupied the rights and ownership of the principality thinking, because of evidence we did not share, that the conveyance might yet prove authentic and genuine through the conveyance, so we kept up the claim, not knowing in an entirely different way everything would work together and provide us with all the rights and entitlements, honors and privileges of a regal sovereign entity. Just, tried and true laws still binding have transferred many royal rights and distinctions in the past and have conveyed the titles to us in the here and now through those same laws.
Mathematically, if we take a mere 24 of the above items, rather than all 50+ of them (in other words, ignore about 48% or almost half of the evidence); and, again as stated, only giving each a 50% chance that each item of evidence would support the claim, it would be like flipping a coin over and over again until we got heads 24 times in a row. The probability of achieving this is one in 16,777,216 which means it is extremely unlikely or remote. That is, for all practical purposes, it is impossible that it happened or all added up by chance. Since we ignored some of the evidence and gave little likelihood for each individual item to have existed, we will round the 16,777,216 to 17,000,000. (Propter hoc, Flipping Our Coins, 2016: https://propterhoc.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/flipping-our-coin) (To ensure the math was right we contacted the Dixie State University Math Department, where a two prominent mathematicians confirmed the above figure and those below as accurate: https://math.dixie.edu)
To show how conservative we are being in only using 24 out of the list of 50+ facts, the probability for just 30 items is far greater to the point of being one in 1,073,741,824. That is, basically, a one in a billion chance of being wrong, or a billion to one likelihood that a true and genuine transfer took place. But just using the more conservative of 24, it is statistically certain. Using 40 items, it jumps to one in 1.1 trillion. Using 48 items, it becomes one plus 157 zeros after it, or one chance in close to a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, billion actual probability of being wrong. That is, the likelihood of it being right is amazingly high. With 63 verified facts, rather than 48, one would come up with an even higher confidence level, which is astronomical in comparison to the overwhelmingly high assurance levels using only 24, 40, or 48 out of the 63 items. This shows that the proof is incontrovertible or, for all intents and purposes, it is incontestable or as the chart says invincible. The confidence level is the highest possible that there could be for any sovereign-royal claim. Doubt of its reality and its authenticity is -- "extremely" unreasonable. Hardly anything could be more sure.
By any reasonable standard, the case is certain, final and conclusive. Consider the following:
Zero probability means there is no chance of something happening, or in our case, there is no chance or only a one in 1.1 trillion that our claim could be wrong. On the other hand, this means there is a 100% likelihood that our claim is absolute true. Yet it is actually more sure than this, because 1.1 trillion is only using a fraction of the verified evidence.
This enormous figure is conclusive of the fact. One might as well 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.
By comparison and contrast, a rule of thumb in the scientific world is if a scientist can demonstrate that the probability of his results are 100 to one, it is considered worthy of publication in a peer review scientific journal. In physics, the threshold for claiming an actual new discovery, is one in 3.5 million, yet in comparison our claim is one in 1.1 trillion or 314,285 times larger or more powerful and obvious. The laws of probability demonstrate certainty, not whim, guesswork, or pretense. (Chad Ornel, In Science, Probability is more Certain then You Think; 2017: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2017/05/03/in-science-probability-is-more-certain-than-you-think/#1c14555b54d1)
Speaking of probability:
You are more likely to be killed by a terrorist this year, than that our claim is anything other than the full and complete truth. (Independent, Chances of being killed by a refuge terrorist in the United States is one in 3.6 billion; 2017: http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/odds.shtml)
You are more likely to die by lightning or the escape of radiation from a nuclear power plant than we are not the owners of all the royal rights and privileges of Halberstadt. (Ibid.)
People can deny anything, but to a fair-minded reasonable person, the writing is on the wall. The odds are beyond doubt. One might as well deny the sun, moon and the stars, the ground upon which you legally stand, the air that you breath, or the gravity that holds us to the earth. Our claim, although abstract, all claims are intangible, they are nevertheless as real as any actual thing is real -- a car, a tree, a human being, a bird, a house, a standing law or statute. It is all based on solid verified facts confirmed by legal scholars and practitioners, who are quoted throughout the website on these things.
Probability, as science, is one of the surest things on earth and probability says our claim could not be more perfect. This kind of certainty is equal to or greater than any other legitimate and valid regal claim on earth.
Eight Legal and Lawful Methods Transferred all the Rights
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")
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, a 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.