Preface and Introduction  

(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:
        Contents after the Brief Forward

  Brief Foreword
  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.
(2) The second reason is that international law obligates a person with a valid regal claim to assert what is rightfully owned, or face the severe penalty of permanently losing all legal entitlement to it. (See "Maintaining Deposed Sovereignty and De jure Ownership" and "Deposed Sovereignty and Royalty: How to Preserve it and How it can be Lost").
(3) The third is that international law requires that a person who claims legal, non-territorial sovereignty is obligated to conclusively prove that the claim is valid and legitimate to the point that it is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and not just "more likely than not" or some kind of fantasy. (See "Proof is Necessary and Required" in "The Law makes all the Difference between an Authentic and False Claim" and "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim")
(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 the 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:

Microsoft Word Document          

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 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.

          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 of mathematics are the principles of almost all things. 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 is 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.

         Zero probability means there is no chance of something happening, or in our case, there is no chance or only a one in 17,000,000 that our claim could be wrong. On the other hand, this means there is a 100% or 99.999411764703% likelihood that our claim is 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 claim could hardly be stronger. This means it is as strong and powerful as the claim of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth I of England and her rightful successors. The case is that solid. (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 doubt reality 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:
(1) Expert witnesses – testimony of six legal scholars and a German heraldic expert attest to its validity and legitimacy. (See "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges" and "Documents"),
(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,
(3) There is a plethora of historical support for the legal rightfulness of the claim – there are numerous examples of similar transfers which have occurred throughout the centuries. (See "Sovereign Honors and Rights can be Transferred" and "Private Individuals can become Royal Sovereigns" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality"),
(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"),    
(5) Eight legal binding methods concurrently establish the lawful transfer. (See "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges," "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"),
(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.   
(7) There are the legal sworn testimonies given under oath and penalty of law testifying of the truth by the most prominent participants. (See "Documents" and "Contact and Affidavits"), and
(8) The mathematical certainty of the claim shows that there is only one chance in 1.1 trillion the claim could be wrong. (See "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim")


          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, [1680], vol. 2, John Pawley Bate, trans., chapter 9, no. 19, 1916)

          Our case is a fairly recent event, but just as valid as those of earlier days. The old acquisition modes are still binding, recognized laws today as they were long ago. (See the "Sovereign Honors and Rights can be Transferred" and "Private Individuals can become Royal Sovereigns" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality" for numerous examples of such in history) That is:

          [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)

          "Other transactions" includes any other legal or lawful mechanism that works. For example, English private international law can activate the transfer of a sovereign regal entity under English domestic law. That is a fact. (See (See "English Private International Law activates English Domestic Adverse Possession" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality")

          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")

          Microsoft Word Document     
          Microsoft Word Document      
          Microsoft Word Document

          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 bet your house? Would you bet your future pension? Most people would do so 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 400 pound gorilla underneath their bed tonight, than this claim is anything less than conclusive and 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

           Law, in general, does not recognize any excuse for ignoring it. There are too many serious consequences involved in paying little or no heed to the law. This is especially true in the field of nobility and royalty. (See "The Law makes all the Difference between an Authentic and a Fraudulent Claim")

          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 Seven 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")
Legally, a valid deed of conveyance that cannot provide "good title," such as ours, automatically, by law, becomes an adverse possession case if there is full compliance with all the requirements thereof, as our case did. (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 Seven Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") (See also "Automatic Nature of Adverse Possession in English Law" in "Three more Legally Binding Methods Transferred all the Rights to the Principality")
It was discovered that sovereign territories, both reigning and non-reigning, can be legally conveyed or transferred through various domestic and internationally recognized legal modes. This is merely a recognized fact both legally and in historical practice. (See "Sovereign Honors and Rights can be Transferred" and "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")
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 Seven 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 Seven 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")  
Besides three domestic methods that can and did convey the international sovereign entity, five international acquisition methods were also legally competent to transfer a deposed sovereign entity. These methods were fully involved in giving us the ownership rights and distinctions thereof. (See "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality" and "In addition, Two more Legally Binding Methods Transferred all the Rights to the Principality")
It is important to understand that all eight 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 Seven 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"),
Abandonment of the deposed entity in question is a key factor in enabling each transfer mode to work. This made everything possible. (See "Abandonment" in both "Letters from the Imperial Family" and "The First of Seven Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges" as well as in the "In addition, Two more Legally Binding Methods Transferred all the Rights to the Principality"),
The fact that eight valid methods have each legally and lawfully transferred all the rights and privileges of the principality, in and of itself, more than qualifies the case as being far "beyond any reasonable doubt." (See "The First of Seven Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges," "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"),
Four powerful protective laws safeguard what has taken place:

a. "Estoppel" legally prevents the word of the Imperial family from being altered; that is, changed or reversed, because they officially stated through their attorneys that they would not take action against the transfer of the principality (See "Estoppel" in The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges"),
b. English "statue of limitations" also automatically blocks any future potential legal action in England against the transfer, because legally the time for doing so is past and this fact cannot be legally modified (See "Statute of Limitations" in The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges"),
c. "Critical date," a principle of international law, requires that nothing in our situation or case, can be admitted or considered legally relevant or material to any legal action after 2014 -- hence this is also protective (See "Critical Date" in "A Seventh and an Eighth Method also Transferred all the Rights and Privileges"), and
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 Seven Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")

 Statistical Summary and Conclusion

          When you consider that a "clear and convincing" case (a 70% confidence level) is defined as being so compelling that it is ". . . clear, direct, weighty in terms of quality, and convincing [so as] to cause you to come to a clear conviction of the truth" or "so clear as to leave no substantial doubt," then you can understand that a case like ours is so certain that instead of being a mere 70% likely, is 99.999999% sure. (Burden of Proof – Clear and Convincing Evidence; 2015: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/civil/charges/1.19.pdf and Robin Meadow, Clear and Convincing Evidence: How Much Is Enough?; 2013: http://www.gmsr.com/article/clear%20and%20convincing%20evidence%20-%20how%20much%20is%20enough.pdf)

          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
You are more likely to be murdered today than we are not the rightful holders of all the rights and distinctions of the principality (1 chance in 19,000). (National Geographic. Feeling Lucky? How Lotto Odds Compare to Shark Attacks and Lightning Sticks; 2018: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131219-lottery-odds-winning-mega-million-lotto)

          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)_______

 The Big Picture

Contents: (Every section and subsection in one way or another provides verified evidence of the truth)

The Big Picture
Fact and Opinion
Evidence and Proof
Prologue
Two Important Definitions
Eight Legal and Lawful Methods Transferred all the Rights
Underlying Purpose


The analogy of the blind men of Indostan, trying to discover what an elephant is, shows us the great importance of getting the big picture and not being fooled by looking only at a small part of the whole or complete truth. In this website, we provide both the details and the big picture. But there are so many details that one can get lost. Therefore, we highly recommend first reading the "Brief Forward" in full, then the "Eight Legal and Lawful Methods Transferred all the Rights," and the "Underlying Purpose." This will give the reader a foundation in which to pursue a greater and more indepth study of the legal facts and verities involved. Also, highly recommended is "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim."

 Fact and Opinion

Note the following on the difference between Facts versus Opinion:

Unknown          

          Obviously, opinions can be completely and utterly false. The Medieval idea, that we should put leeches on our bodies to get the bad blood out, is a good example of what opinion without facts can do to mutilate and ruin any field of endeavor. Nobility and chivalry are no exceptions to being corrupted by opinion. There are many falsehoods in the field. (See "PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS: the Future of Nobility and Chivalry" at http://www.nobility-royalty.com/id108.htm)

          The truth is the only thing that is certain. Truth, whether popular or not, is one of the greatest treasures of life.

          Rather than being opinion based and unwittingly promoting falsehoods, we must be evidence based, which is what this website is all about. The admonition of the scriptures is "Prove all things, hold fast to what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Due diligence is required, because opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding, no verification, confirmation or validation of facts is required. It is all too often built on nothing -- nothing truly substantial. The point is:


          Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no standard of truth, no verification or confirmation of facts. It is all to often built on nothing but questionable, subjective, unproven thoughts and ideas. There is no substantiation or validation involved. Hence, it is composed of little that is reliable.         

          The case of Halberstadt is very different from this. It is built on many profound verified facts, not opinions. It is not about inferences, guesswork or hunches. It is constructed on a sound foundation of legal facts, which includes statutes, precedence and binding laws that conclusively transfered all sovereign rights and privileges. This is the kind of foundation that can be trusted. (See "The Law makes all the Difference between an Authentic and a Fraudulent Claim")

 Evidence and Proof

          This website presents a profound amount of verified evidence, which amounts to proof "beyond any reasonable doubt" -- the highest confidence level possible on earth -- that the claim is absolutely true.


          Real proof is conclusive. It establishes a fact and it is absolutely essential to any sovereign claim. (See "Proof is Necessary and Required" in "The Law makes all the Difference between an Authentic and a Fraudulent Claim") This whole website is about the profound amount of definitive and incontestable proof that exists that the claim is a verified and established fact. (See "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim")
 
 Prologue

This website was originally used to protest the gross misconduct of the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales (SRA) and the former Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) toward me and my official complaints against an English solicitor for failing to honor his firm's "undertaking" or binding professional promise. This is why the internet address is www.sra-lso-misconduct.com, which reflects this serious original concern. To fail to fulfill a legal "undertaking" is considered to be professional misconduct.

          However, the legal situation has changed and made a major 180 degree turn-around. In a nutshell, the rights were not conveyed by the 2000 "Deed of Transfer," they were transferred by different laws, which created a more powerful and legally binding transfer of all the regal rights, royal honors, distinctions and privileges. The transfer was accomplished by eight legal and lawful acquisition modes -- three domestic and five by international law. (See "Eight Legal and Lawful Methods Transferred all the Rights")

          All past websites about the conveyance being questionable are out of touch and obsolete, because the transfer of the rights to the Principality were not by "conveyance" at all. Hence, those websites and their complaints have no rational bearing, are not relevant in the least to the case, or material in any way to the actual situation. As a result, they only spread misinformation, not truth. (See "Problem -- Misinformation")

          Therefore, the focus of this website is on how the transfer actually took place, not on how it didn't.

          This claim, being a genuine one, has been vetted or recognized by legal scholars as one that is valid, rightful and legitimate. The mathematical laws of probability have also been applied showing a minimum of 17,000,000 to one chance it could be anything, but the full truth and nothing but the truth.  (See "The First of Seven Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges" and/or "Documents" and "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim") In other words, the past is now irrelevant. What actually took place is what really counts. The truth must be told, if the truth is to prevail, because:

          The whole field of nobility and royalty is in disarray and confusion. . . . . Besides the numerous scams and charlatans that exist, there is a widespread misunderstanding of the international and natural laws that govern dynastic rights. This is a field that is truly divided. This sad state of affairs need not continue. If international law is honored, revered and respected, then everything can be set in its proper order. The grand key to this needed unity is the rule of the just, time-honored laws that already exist. . . .

          This ground-breaking book dispels the more widespread myths, fairy tales and fabrications regarding royal titles, honors, and distinctions.  It deals with non-territorial sovereignty, which is central to the legal and moral survival of nobility and royalty in a modern world that is full of misinformation. (Stephen P. Kerr, The Entitlement to Rule: Legal, Non-Territorial Sovereignty in International Law, Foreword; 2019: http://www.the-entitlement-to-rule.com.

          This masterpiece, the book The Entitlement to Rule, goes on to elaborate in great detail the binding laws that can enable people to tell what is true and authentic from what is false and counterfeit. Our claim being in perfect harmony, with the universal laws and practices of mankind from time immemorial, is a triumph of what is lawfully right. (See "The Law makes all the Difference between an Authentic and a Fraudulent Claim")

          If this website appears to be too much or an overkill on the subject, please understand that it was designed to be that way. This website is an onging dissertation/project and it must cover all the basic in a comprehensive manner, teach correct legal principals, and provide full disclosure, proof and evidence to the point that the case is obviously "beyond any reasonable doubt." The language style used is to incorporate as many reliable quotes as possible, interwoven into the dialogue, so that all the legal assertions are confirmed by experts in the field of law. Thus, all the legal facts are verified by objective outside voices. Some sub-sections are short or do not explain every concept in depth; therefore, referrals to more lengthy articles are provided. One can merely click on them to get a deeper or more complete understanding of the particular principle.

          There is no other website like ours that is completely built on a foundation of law providing the real truth about nobility and chivalry. Our claim is based on verified legal facts, not on assumptions, wishful thinking or legal distortions, but on rock solid legal truth and reality. (Again, see "The Law makes all the Difference between an Authentic and a Fraudulent Claim")

Only one conclusion is warranted, makes sense, or fits with all the facts. If one is truly willing to read and examine the details in this website, he or she will find that it is extremely self-evident that the claim is definitive, complete and final.

 Two Important Definitions

          Two words will come up over and over in the website and need to be understood: de jure and de facto in terms of sovereignty or the right to rule and govern a nation. This right can legally exist in both a deposed or non-reigning royal house and in a reigning or regnant state at the same time. In other words, there can be two rulers -- the one in actual control of the country, and a dispossessed ruler who is the rightful and legitimate holder of the entitlement to rule. In most countries, the de facto ruler is also the de jure or legally rightful one. However, in a number of countries, there is a deposed monarchy that owns the real right to rule, while the subsequent republic government that overthrow the legitimate monarchy rules the land. By definition:

          De jure sovereignty is the legal [rightful or lawful] sovereignty and it has its foundation in law. Its attribute is the [lawful] right to govern or command [whether in power over the land or an a legitimate deposed entity]. . . . The de facto [the actually ruling government] may not be a legal [or the rightful] sovereign [even though it is thought to be such]. (A. C. Kapur, Principles of Political Science, 1997, p. 197)

          It is the de jure or legal sovereign, whether reigning or deposed, who is the true, constitutionally valid and lawful ruler. In other words, it is the de jure sovereign -- the illegally dispossessed monarch, who has the full legitimate right to govern and reign even though the de facto government is in full and complete control of the land and may have ruled for centuries.

         . . . [A] government de facto is one that is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or without lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but has never had plenary [full or true] possession of it, or is not in actual possession. (Henry Campbell Black, A Dictionary of Law: Containing Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence Ancient and Modern, "De Facto," 1891, p. 326)

          Even though the de facto ruler has the actual power or is in control of the nation and recognized as such, the de jure sovereign is still the lawful and legitimate ruler recognized by law. De jure means, by definition, legal, rightful, legitimate, valid, authentic, bona fide, lawful, true, real, legit and just. De facto means in control, ruling, operating in fact and in reality, actually reigning, at the helm or in charge. De jure refers to the highest right secular right on earth -- the supreme authentic internal right of rulership.

          This sacred deposed right cannot be lost, "if the proprietor [the one who owns the de jure or legal right of sovereignty] has not neglected [or abandoned] his right." (Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 2, no. 142) A deposed or de jure king or sovereign prince can ". . . transmit this right to his descendants, with the same order of succession, though he has never reigned himself, that is to say, the right of the deceased passes to the living" from generation to generation as long as it is maintained as the international law of prescription requires. (Johann Wolfgang Textor, Synopsis of the Law of Nations, vol. 2, 1680, p. 72) (See "Maintaining Deposed Sovereignty and De jure Ownership")

Obviously, ". . . de facto  sovereignty is not the same as de jure sovereignty, and one can exist without the other." (Kent McNeil, "Sovereignty and Indigenous Peoples in North America," Davis Journal of International Law and Policy, vol. 22, no. 2, 2016, p. 103) That is, "It is . . . apparent that a political entity can have de jure sovereignty in one legal system [in international law], yet be denied it in another [under the domestic law of the nation that robbed the deposed house of de facto rule]." (Julie Evans, Ann Genovese, Alexander Reilly, Patrick Wolfe, Sovereignty: Frontiers of Possibility, 2013, p. 43) The dispossessed sovereign royal house is de jure, and the other would be the de facto republic that illegally and wrongfully overthrew the legitimate government. ". . . De jure [or legal] sovereignty subsists [that is, remains in force or effect] in the occupied territory’s governments-in-exile [or illegally deposed monarchies]." (American Bar Association, "Report of Committee on Law of Occupied Areas and Extra-Territorial Defense Areas," Proceedings, August 4-8, 1962, p. 85)

This website is about the transfer, and our ownership of all the de jure or legal rights, privileges, honors and distinctions of the principality of Halberstadt.

 Eight Legal and Lawful Methods Transferred all the Rights

          Ownership is now so well established and protected that it is a legal fact and certainty, because every facet of the law was fully complied with and has been fully attested to by experts. (See "Expert Opinions and Recognitions" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges" and "Documents")

          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:

(1) the 1st Binding Transfer: English private international law and English adverse possession (2001 in part, 2002 in part, and fully in 2014) . (See "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality")
(2) the 2nd Binding Transfer: non-belligerent occupation (2002). (See "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality")
(3) the 3rd Binding Transfer: going from the second-best right on earth to the highest right on earth after the abandonment (2002). (See "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality")
(4) the 4th Binding Transfer: proprietary estoppel and equitable rights, (2012). (See "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality")
(5) the 5th Binding Transfer: non-violent or peaceful conquest (2001, 2002, 2006, 2012, 2014) (See "In addition, Two more Legally Binding Methods Transferred all the Rights to the Principality"), and
(6) the 6th Binding Transfer: international prescriptive law (2002). (See "In addition, Two more Legally Binding Methods Transferred all the Rights to the Principality")
(7) the 7th Binding Transfer: cession by abandonment and recognition (2012). (See "A Seventh and Eighth Method also Transferred all the Rights and Privileges")
(8) the 8th Binding Transfer: annexation (2000, 2001 & 2002). (See "A Seventh and Eighth Method also Transferred all the Rights and Privileges")

          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")

          Not one of the transfer methods mentioned above require court action or other legal involvement to activate them. Once completed, each of the eleven are legally an accomplish fact -- binding, eternal, and endless as long as they are maintained as the law mandates for de jure sovereignty. (See "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" and "Maintaining Deposed Sovereignty and De jure Ownership")

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")

 Underlying Purpose:

          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.