Eight Legitimate and Lawful Transfer Modes:
The Public and Non-Public Use of Titles in International Law
Contents: (Every section and subsection in one way or another provides verified evidence of the truth)
(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 Purpose and the Truth:
There are five major 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)
(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 "beyond a reasonable doubt" of our claim, and the laws that determine when a case is authentic, valid and genuine. (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
") In other words, this case is not based on hunches, speculation, guesswork, or suspicion. Nor it is not based on myth, legend, fabrication, or make believe. It is based on numerous 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, 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. Mathematically, there is only a one in 1.1 trillion chance, it could be a false, or a 1.1 trillion to one likelihood that it is true.
(Again, see "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim
Public and Private Titles and Knighthoods
(Much of the following was taken, by permission, from the book The Entitlement to Rule: Legal, Non-Territorial Sovereignty in International Law
written by Stephen P. Kerr) (See http://www.the-entitlement-to-rule
A large number of former principalities and kingdoms in Indonesia and some in Africa, who have lost their legal, non-territorial rights as sovereign houses, were in that last decade given non-sovereign, traditional, or cultural recognition by their respective governments supposedly with no political authority.
For example, the Indonesian National Parliament passed Law No. 39 and 7(a) in December of 2007. It recognized all the traditional royal dynasties close to 300 of them. This Law strengthens the presence of the former Royal dynasties in the life of the Nation and ensures for them the formal support of the Government. It allows the reconstruction and maintenance of the ancient palaces, the restitution of confiscated properties to the kings and the financial support to the traditional ceremonies and festivals of the traditional monarchs. However, every time a monarch is succeeded by his heir, the new Head of the Dynasty has to be recognized by the Government. Local governments were ordered to protect and support this initiative.
These sultans, princes and rajas only have cultural authority and title. They are, in fact, non-royals and are legally commoners (provided their progenitors forfeited or lost de jure sovereignty), in spite of their regal titles. This is because a house cannot be royal without sovereignty. (See the "Introduction" to chapter one in this volume) Nevertheless, they have influence, respect and purpose as cultural leaders, but are not on the same level as a true and authentic sovereign royal house that has preserved their supreme right through international prescriptive law.
However, if they truly have official national cultural rights and recognition within a nation, they cannot be considered counterfeiters or impersonators. Nevertheless, their legal status is limited and confined to the boundaries of the nation that supports their cultural awards. If they claim the same status and rank as a legitimate sovereign house, when their ancestors lost this right, they will be perpetuating a falsehood or misrepresenting the truth.
An individual given an honor from a recognized cultural monarchy should not use that title or knighthood designation outside of that country -- just like a title from a social club should not be used outside of the confines of that organization. To do so, would be to unlawfully imply that their distinction is an international public one, instead of a domestic honor or a private title. It would be an act of dishonesty to misrepresent an honor, or claim to be something it is not.
A permanent hereditary title or honor from a legitimate de jure monarch is a genuine public international accolade one of the highest distinctions a man can receive. A title or honor from a government recognized non-sovereign cultural house would be genuine and authentic only within the boundaries of that particular nation. It would not have the same public right and legal status of a genuine sovereign entity in international law like a knighthood from a true sovereign imperial or royal house. A public title from an authentic non-territorial or reigning sovereign is a profound privilege and treasure far beyond an honor a limited cultural monarch can give.
The following is an abbreviated declaration concerning public and private titles:
(1) First, there are public noble and chivalric titles that hold international public rights. They are given by a legitimate sovereign entity, whether reigning or deposed. This type of public honor is of the highest magnitude and is valid worldwide as much as one's given name -- it is an identity right. This worldwide right is based on international sovereignty law. One can morally and ethically use such a designation as part of ones identity anywhere on earth as long as it does not violate the law of the country in which one is residing or would be socially uncomfortable or counterproductive to use,
(2) Second, there are also domestic, rather than international public titles that are legally authorized and approved by an official national government entity of some country, but not granted by its sovereign authority. Such honors are legitimate public distinctions, but should only be used within the granting state, county, city or village of origin. It should not be used outside of that jurisdiction -- only a sovereign grant is universal,
(3) Third, there are, in addition, private titles from a cultural, social, religious or other organization, which are of little value or worth, and should not be used beyond the limited and narrow confines of the club, church (non-Catholic -- as the Pope has the sovereign secular right to rule over one of the tiniest countries on earth) or other non-sovereign organization involved. An example would be a noble or knightly imitation title from a fraternity, a Masonic order or a Moose Lodge. They are not to be used publicly, and, of course,
(4) Fourth, there are fake titles that should never be used, because they are counterfeit of what is real, true and genuine and it would be deceitful to use one on a public basis. Yet this kind of thing is rampant.
This is because they are public rights. To bear a public distinction one must be given it under sovereign authority. That is, only a sovereign entity -- a public international person or sovereign government entity has the right to bestow public honors. (See "Deposed Monarchs and their Lawful Successors have International Personality as Public Persons under International Law
" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality
If a non-reigning sovereign forfeits his right to rule, for violating the laws that maintain and preserve legal, non-territorial sovereignty, then any order of chivalry or any conferred title automatically loses its public status and becomes a private dignity, which should not to be used in public. In other words, the public right lives or dies on the principle of having a living breathing sovereign entity or legitimate fons honorum
that is backed by the law of all nations. "Without such a [living] sovereign fons honorum, the legitimacy of an order of chivalry lapses [or disappears].
" (Stephen P. Kerr, Dynastic Law; 2019: http://www.nobility-royalty.com/id70.htm
) Anything less than a living public fountain of honor is private. It does not have the status of a universal or international right. In summary, sovereignty is the grand master key -- the heart and soul for having public worldwide authority under international law. (See "The Vital Importance of Sovereignty
"Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality
") (See "The Principality of Halberstadt was and is a Sovereign Entity and therefore a Royal Realm
" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges
") (See "What was Transferred
" for the authentic public titles of the principality)
Adoptions: Public and Private Nobility Claims
The rule against using a private title publicly is based entirely on the moral and ethical mandate that one must be honest and truthful (not bear false witness to the world at large) therefore, one should not use a title that implies one is an authentic noble, when the title is not supported by either a reigning or non-reigning royal house that is still a legally intact -- as a lawful and true sovereign entity in international law.
Another important point to remember is that adoptions can convey full legal and legitimate succession rights. We are not discussing the phony name changes that now take place in order to obtain a title as the recipients think. These are invalid, unless, of course, the head of the family --- the reigning or de jure sovereign approves of it and makes it authentic and acceptable. Otherwise, they are nothing more or less than legal name changes. No real ancient rights are attached or connected with these phony legal ploys. But a true adoption, under the authority of a sovereign state or sovereign person is completely authoritative and legally binding. Hugo Grotius declared:
. . . because of assumed intent in the matter of succession, adopted children are not at a disadvantage in comparison with true children. Thus Hyllus, son of Hercules, succeeded by adoption to the kingdom of Aepalius, king of the Locrians. [And] Molossus, a bastard, by the will of his father Pyrrhus, who had no legitimate children, succeeded to the throne of Epirus. (On the Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 7, no. 12)
Prince Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph, Archduke of Austria, accepted the appointment of being the Emperor of Mexico in 1864. However, he and his wife Carlotta were childless. To assure succession, he adopted Don Augustin, the son of an Imperial Prince of a former ruling family of Mexico, to be his successor. A quite similar story of adoption took place in the ruling dynasty of Monaco. It is also a well-known fact that the childless King of Sweden in 1810 adopted one of Napoleon's Field Marshals of Imperial France. His name was Bernadotte and the king left his throne and crown to this man and his successors. (See picture) The present King of Sweden is the direct descendant of this royal adoptee. All such decisions depends on what the people in real power want. An adoptive heir can be designated, and legally ascend to the throne, and all the sovereign glory and prerogatives inherent in any land or nation because his and his successors after him.
Public and Private Law as it relates to the Transfer of the Principality of Halberstadt
First and foremost, it is important to understand the separate jurisdiction or place of public and private law:
Basically, the former impacts many, the other few. The following are two examples:
If you saw a man run from a convenience store with a few pilfered products under his arm, he is violating public law. He committed the crime of theft, and that affects everyone.
On the other hand, if your neighbor filed suit against you because your barbeque smoke traveled to his yard, you may be violating private law. You infringed on your neighbor's right to peaceful enjoyment of his property. (Ibid.)
The transfer began with a contract, sale or conveyance. It was a private law situation affecting very few people -- myself and the Imperial House, but not society as a whole. The following are general or universal principles concerning a sovereign entity and private law:
[It is a mistake to think] that private law never applies to the State or other public bodies [such as a deposed sovereign entity like the Imperial family]. For bodies subject to public law can make use of private law, methods and institutions; there is sufficient unity in the law to confer on all persons, including the State, in both public and private law capacities. . . . Private law governs all acts done in a private law capacity, whether by public bodies or by private persons. (G. Miele, G. Cotzi, and D. Falconi, "Italian Administrative Law," The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 3, July 1954, p. 421)
A deposed principality, or minor royal princely house that is still an intact sovereign entity in international law, holds the right of sovereignty on both a public and private level. Privately, as an acquired or vested legal right obtain by virtue of holding the highest secular right on earth in the nation before being illegally deposed. That is, if the House never abandoned their right to rule, but maintained it by prescriptive law, then it is never lost either as a privately held or a public right. It is also a subject of public law as an intact sovereign entity or international person, in international law.
A transfer of regal de jure
sovereignty is a juridical
rather than a judicial
process. Such a "juridical act
" is a means to profoundly change a legal situation. It is normally a private law act; such as, a contract, but it can also be a public law action as in a treaty. Such an act does not require either legal involvement or court action, but is legally binding on its own. Now right to the point, ". . . Juridical acts . . . 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 Perspective
, vol. 3, 1970, p. 347) In other words, a juridical act, whether through private or public law can transfer an international land right that includes the highest secular right on earth that of sovereignty. This is what took place in regard to our family, but not merely through the private law -- the laws of adverse possession, obtaining the highest right or possession on earth, or proprietary estoppel alone, but five international acquisition laws also "operate[d] as titles by which territorial sovereignty
" was legally transferred. (See "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality,
" "In addition, Two more Legally Binding Methods Transferred all the Rights to the Principality,
" and "A Seventh and an Eighth Method also Transferred all the Rights and Privileges
") (See also "Juridical Acts
" in "Letters from the Imperial Family
. . . Jurisdiction in international cases [or cases involving sovereignty that is] of a private nature ["an issue between two or more people"] is not governed by international law, but by the domestic law of each state.
(Chilenye Nwap, "Litigating Extraterritorial Corporate Crimes in Canadian Courts," Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia, 2012, p. 142) (emphasis added)
A government [or a patrimonial, non-reigning, de jure monarch], when acting in its proprietary capacity [for example as the private owner of a deposed sovereign entity] would normally be bound by ordinary commercial [law, not public law, but private] law unless otherwise provided by statute or regulation. (American Bar Association, Government Contract Law: The Deskbook for Procurement Professionals, 3rd ed., 2007, p. 3)
This is because the rules of private international law governs international private law circumstances such as ours. In other words, "[Private international law can be] . . . the facilitation [or furtherance] of international legal transactions [which can include the transfer of proprietary sovereignty] between private parties." (Th.M. de Boer, "Living Apart Together: The Relationship between Public and Private International Law," Netherlands International Law Review, vol. 57, 2010, p. 20) The point is, sovereign entities, reigning or non-reigning, can use private law contracts or other private law statutes or practices when dealing with private individuals or corporations. (Ivar Alvik, Contracting with Sovereignty: State Contracts and International Arbitration, 2011) The following concerns a private contract with a reigning nation:
A private party dealing with a sovereign counterpart [in a contract] can further optimise its legal position by insisting that the law of a jurisdiction, which is known to be favourable to private parties and to arbitration generally, govern the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. The chosen law should make it difficult for sovereign parties to escape their contractual promises by invoking their municipal laws or their immunity.
(Lexology, Drafting tips for contracting with sovereign parties; 2019: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a22bf2dd-cd0b-441f-a0f4-638d35b8572d
Such precautions are not relevant when dealing with a deposed royal house as they do not have the power and authority of a reigning nation. A legal, non-territorial or deposed sovereignty could operate as a private entity or public one or both. In our case, the situation was first an English private law transaction with an "international" component. Therefore, English "private international law" governed and opened up the door for three domestic transfer modes to establish the transfer of all rights.
Since the transfer involved de jure, non-reigning sovereignty, the highest secular right on earth, which is a recognized legal right in international law, our claim also qualified for the legal acquisition mechanisms of "public international law." Public law is the right to govern a societal right that has the potential for affecting "society as a whole." The international laws, that each transferred the principality, are occupation, non-violent conquest, international prescription, cession and annexation. Three additional modes discovered include international proprietary estoppel, novation and consolidation of title.
It has been widely observed that governance powers that were once considered the [exclusive] prerogative [or domain] of the nation state have emerged in a form where they are exercised by [private law] actors distinct from national governments. (Colin Scott, Fabrizio Cafaggi and Linda Senden, "The Conceptual and Constitutional Challenge of Transnational Private Regulation," Journal of Law and Society, vol. 38, no. 1, March 2011, p. 1)
This permanent transfer of sovereign powers [though private law], in part, is not confined to fiscal powers [or financial concerns only]. Core acts of sovereignty, such as warfare and its logistics, have been outsourced to private companies. The case of Halliburton and its subcontractors in the U.S. in the Iraq war is but one prominent example. (Andreas Rahmatian, "Indirect Sovereignty through Property Rights," Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law, vol. 7, issue 2, article 4, May 3, 2017, p. 88)
Private prisons is another beyond merely commercial rights. (Ibid., p. 84) The point is, ". . . matters traditionally reserved [exclusively] to . . . public law can be regulated . . . [or achieved though] private law. . . ." (Ibid.) ". . . property rights are enforceable against the whole world, erga omnes [that is, they are not to be violated]; everyone [in the whole world] is bound to observe these rights." (Ibid., p. 59) They are acquired rights, legally vested, established and international binding, mostly because "private international law" enables an international legal right to be transferred. In our case, it was accomplished through three different English law legal modes.
In summary, three domestic transfer methods were achieved by "private international law," and five international modes were governed by "public international law." Both domestic and international law were involved. All eight legally binding acquisition modes moved all the regal ownership rights from the Royal and Imperial House of Hohenzollern to our family. The fulfillment of these binding laws made us the rightful holders of all the public titles and regal rights of the Principality of Halberstadt, which are still, and will continue to be, an intact legal and lawful sovereign entity in international law. These binding laws and rights made us a rightful and lawful "royal princely house." ". . . It is this [kind of binding authority and laws] which gives the receiver . . . regal [that is, kingly or princely] right[s]" -- not as a reigning entity, but owning the lawful sovereign right to rule the land as proprietors. (Johann Wolfgang Textor, Synopsis of the Law of Nations, , vol. 2, John Pawley Bate, trans., chapter 9, no. 19, 1916)
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 "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
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.
"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.