I am publishing the following "Declaration of Full and Complete Ownership" to alert any potential victim that Mr. Boada, nor any of his other partners in crime, have a legal right to sell the title of Halberstadt, not even the fake title of Halberstadt. It is hoped that this document will prevent Boada, Williams or Pitts-Tucker from perpetuating this same ugly crime on another human being. At least, it would open up the way for a nasty law suit against them if they did, which is part of it's purpose.

WHEREAS, the feudal Principality of Halberstadt was legally conveyed by “Deed of Transfer” to myself, (name redacted) “with all Rights, Privileges, Honours, and Emoluments,” through representatives of the heirs to the Imperial and Royal German House of Hohenzollern, who were the rightful owners, on January 14, 2000 according to the “Statutory Declarations” of Antonio A. Boada for the Hohenzollern Family Land Trust as stated and legally declared on January 14, 2000, June 26, 2000 and November 5, 2000 respectively,

WHEREAS, Antonio A. Boada took action in an effort to take away said Principality in late 2003 by writing to the Bankruptcy Trustee, R. Kimball Mosier, Esq., who was in charge of my Estate, sometime, it is believed, between August 2003 and October 2003, through the auspices of a defunct corporation entitled British Feudal Investments, Ltd., which ultimately culminated in a court order, made despite my protest, that was approved on November 5, 2004 to permit the conveyance of the Principality to British Feudal Investments, Ltd. as requested by Mr. Boada,

WHEREAS, there is the real title and principality of Halberstadt, and the fake or phoney title and principality. The Court sold the latter or counterfeit, which is what I warned them and officially declared was going to take place. I made it eminently clear in my “Objection to Motion to Sell Feudal Title” that they were not going to sell a genuine or authentic title. What was sold would be totally worthless and bogas. Hence, taking the warning, the Court cautioned the Trustee to not involve the Court in the perpetuation of a crime. Therefore it was stipulated in the February 9, 2005 Bill of Sale that the “Buyer [the non-existent and defunct British Feudal Investments, Ltd.] acknowledges . . . that delivery of the subject Property is “AS IS” and “WITH ALL FAULTS,” and that Seller [the Court] has disclaimed any implied warranties with respect to the subject Property [‘or any guarantee of authenticity or validity for it’].” More than two/thirds of the Bill of Sale was devoted to legal cautions and warnings. Hence, it was indirectly recognized that all that was transferred was a sham as I had earnestly expressed to them. However, if Mr. Boada claims the ownership of the real and actual title and principality was transferred, then the following applies. This is the basic premise for all that follows,

WHEREAS, a “Bill of Sale” was made out, completed and legalized on February 9, 2005 by the Trustee, R. Kimball Mosier, Esq., selling the feudal Principality of Halberstadt from the estate of (names redacted) to said corporation, British Feudal Investments, Ltd., as requested by Mr. Antonio A. Boada. And the case regarding the Principality of Halberstadt being fully and completely administered, was finalized and closed on, January 13, 2006 after all the final, required approvals. As a result, said Court no longer has any legal jurisdiction, claim, interest, title, rights, power or authority hereafter over said Principality or property, because the said Principality is no longer a part of the bankruptcy estate of the said debtors, therefore, it is a done deal. It cannot be reconsidered, because it is legally over with being completed, finished and concluded,

WHEREAS, back on September 21, 2004, Mr. R. Kimball Mosier, the Trustee of the Estate, submitted a motion for court authority to sell said Principality to “British Feudal Investments, Ltd.,” again, as requested by Antonio A. Boada through his attorney, Margaret J. Montalvo, Esq. This motion and the notice of hearing on the Trustee’s motion to sell said property to “British Feudal Investments, Ltd.” was sent to Antonio A. Boada and Margaret J. Montalvo on September 21, 2005 informing them that any objections to the motion must be received by the Court on or before October 11, 2004. It is important to note that no objection was submitted by Mr. Boada or his attorney to selling the property to “British Feudal Investments, Ltd.,”

WHEREAS, between January 18, 2005 and February 9, 2005–the actual day of the transfer of property, Margaret J. Montalvo and R. Kimball Mosier discussed in detail several times about the wording of the Bill of Sale including the possibility of changing the purchaser in the Bill of Sale from British Feudal Investments, Ltd. to some other entity or person. That is, even though another hearing could have permitted such a change of purchaser, Mr. Antonio A. Boada decided to go through with his original intentions to have “British Feudal Investments, Ltd.” purchase the Principality. This was a conscious choice based on a knowledge of the legal consequences as shall be shown hereafter. In other words, it was an informed decision made under legal counsel,

WHEREAS, the legal consequences of this decision were most profound and important. Because the corporation, “British Feudal Investments, Ltd.” is a defunct corporation that, in fact, never really existed. That is, according to the certificate of voluntary surrender (based on Delaware Corporate Law Section 274), British Feudal Investments, Ltd. declared that they had “no assets and the business for which the corporation was organized never begun.” That is, according to Delaware terminology, this corporation never did any business and voluntarily “terminated its legal existence.” In other words, it legally surrendered “all,” not some, but “all of the corporation’s rights,” which is inclusive to mean every single right it ever possessed, to the State of Delaware on April 15, 2002 almost three years ago prior to the time of the actions of said U. S. Bankruptcy Court,

WHEREAS, a search was commissioned in March of 2005 of all the states and territories of Canada and the United States and two hundred thirteen other sovereignties, territories and colonies, including all countries that are used for offshore incorporating, such as, Seychelles, and it was discovered that British Feudal Investments, Ltd. was not anywhere to be found. Hence, the great likelihood, as a result of this investigation, is that British Feudal Investments, Ltd. was never reincorporated and therefore does not legally exist as a legal entity anywhere on earth. Should Mr. Boada produce papers that suggest otherwise, there is not a jurisdiction on earth that there are not individuals (contacts) who will not be able to confirm or invalidate such a claim. This is according to a company spokesman that does this kind of specialized investigation. Therefore, any fabricated statement or document to the contrary that Mr. Boada might produced will be discovered and exposed for what it is. The corporation British Feudal Investments, Ltd. simply cannot do any business. It doesn’t exist.

WHEREAS, in several instances, the fact that British Feudal Investments, Ltd. does not even exist, and was never legally registered in England or Florida as required by law, was communicated indirectly through my website www.phoneynobletitles.com under the chapter entitled “Accomplice,” and directly to Mr. Antonio A. Boada, his Florida Attorney, Margaret J. Montalvo, and his London Solicitor, Roger A. Pitts-Tucker, by myself several times by e-mail. But most importantly, it was communicated officially in my “Objection to Motion to Sell Feudal Title,” submitted to the U. S. Federal Bankruptcy Court, the Trustee, Mr. R. Kimball Mosier, and sent to Mr. Antonio A. Boada, as required, through his London British Feudal Investments, Ltd. mail forwarding address, and to his Attorney, Margaret J. Montalvo in Florida, who represented him in this case, as well as all others required by law. In item number five, on page five of said document, I emphatically declared and gave full warning that the title should not be sold to British Feudal Investments, Ltd., because:

WHEREAS, Antonio A. Boada, as the former corporation’s Secretary, and self-proclaimed Director, being fully aware and informed of the corporation’s non-entity status, knew that British Feudal Investments, Ltd. did not exist or had any right to do any kind of business transaction in February of 2005 and has not existed for several years. Therefore, he knew that it does not have authority to buy property for any reason whatsoever. In other words, Mr. Boada knew that said corporation was legally terminated or was dead and defunct at the time he requested in writing through his Florida attorney Margaret J. Montalvo that the Trustee convey said property or said Principality to this legally dead and non-existent corporation,

WHEREAS, despite my official warning not to do so, Antonio A. Boada, knowingly went ahead and did this anyway. He even reconsidered this particular legal point again in February of 2005, according to Mr. Mosier’s records, and then with the assistance of legal counsel, Antonio A. Boada made a final, intentional decision to go ahead with the purchase of said Principality via the dead, nonexistent corporation. The whole point here boils down to this: to willfully sell the Principality to a non-entity, that is, to willfully sell said property to something that does not even exist anywhere on earth, as Mr. Boada knowingly did, is to deliberately and unequivocally throw away the property or put it into the public domain as discarded, dumped, disposed of, chucked or deserted property,

WHEREAS, according to the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (1995), or in other words, the weight of decades of case law, the conclusion is that when a person actually gives up possession of property by such a deliberate and obvious act, as Mr. Boada did in this case, it is entirely sufficient and therefore conclusive evidence of an individual’s full and incontestable intent to abandon the property,

WHEREAS, according Utah code 67, the Unclaimed Property Act, a feudal title of sovereign nobility (said Principality) is outside all (broadly defined) legal definitions of tangible and intangible property affected by the law, without exception; hence, the property describe in this Declaration of Full and Complete Ownership is not, and never has been, subject to any kind of State custody, therefore, no State involvement is required to legally claim full ownership of said Principality under the law as it is presently constituted,

WHEREAS, abandoned property "is deemed to have been returned, so to speak, to the common mass and to belong to the one who first assumes possession, . . . and the former owner can assert no [further] claims thereto." (Aigler, Rights of Finders, 21 Mich. L.Rev. 664 in William T. Fryer, Readings in Personal Property, 368) In other words, by law, custom and practice, neither Mr. Antonio A. Boada or his non-existent entity owns the said property–the Principality of Halberstadt, because, “a abandonment of property or a right divests the title and ownership of the [former] owner as fully and completely as would a conveyance,” or, as fully and completely as though it were sold and he or she, the former owner, no longer owns it or has any claim to it. (1 Corpus Juris Secundum §12, n. 71)

WHEREAS, under these circumstances, as quoted, the first finder of an abandoned or discarded object in both common and statutory law has a right to take possession of the same, above all others. Therefore, the first finder and claimer has, in fact, the highest right and entitlement to this property on earth. This “Declaration of Full and Complete Ownership” is my legal and rightful claim to that permanent right free and clear of all liens or encumbrances. Many months ago, I made my first declaration of ownership or claim to the exclusive ownership of said property and had it witnessed and notarized. As a result of these two legalized claims, the said Principality is exclusively owned by me, (name redacted) and neither British Feudal Investments, Ltd. or Antonio A. Boada have any further connection or claim to it,

WHEREAS, if the forgoing “Section on Abandonment and Repossession” were not enough to establish my total and complete ownership, there is another set of profound and far-reaching points that negates the jurisdiction of the Utah U. S. Bankruptcy Court and therefore invalidates its decisions, making it as though the said property was never actually taken away from me in the first place–their actions being absolutely and irrevocably null and void or of no effect. Thus further illustrating the incontestable fact that I, (name redacted), am the sole, rightful owner of said Principality. These additional important principles of law are set forth as follows:

WHEREAS, when the feudal Principality of Halberstadt was legally conveyed to me in January of 2000, it transferred “all” it’s rights. “All rights” includes the right of “sovereignty” or right to rule. Not “de facto,” or presently reigning “in fact,” but “de jure” sovereignty, that is, “by law” or “by right” in this case. In other words, sovereignty “by law” or by rightful and legitimate claim was conferred or given in its entirety to me at that time,

WHEREAS, sovereignty of any kind no matter whether it is “de jure” or “de facto” is an international issue and cannot be ruled upon by a court of incompetent jurisdiction, such as, a Utah bound, U. S. National Court. Only a recognized World Court approved by the United Nation’s International Court of Justice or ICJ, could take proper jurisdiction. As a point of law:

[“De jure”] territorial States, kingdoms and principalities, as well as regnant princes, the pope, the United Nations, the International Red Cross, and the Order of Malta are subjects of public international law. (Stephen Kerr, B.B.A., J.D., LL.M., M.A.T. international litigator and full professor: Antioch School of Law, Washington, D. C. in an article entitled “Dynastic Law”)

Therefore, the court decree of the said U. S. Bankruptcy Court cannot carry any legal weight–it’s judgment and jurisdiction being without any real merit, power or discretion in this case. Operating completely out of the bounds of its authority, the court order and bill of sale created by this court are effectively nullified. They have no validity, legal power or impact in regard to the principality in question,

WHEREAS, if the said principality was not a principality and this case had nothing to do with the fundamental international principle of sovereignty, which makes it subject to international law, then we are faced with the fact that the Feudal Principality of Halberstadt once existed in the past within the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. Now to the point, it is a basic and well understood legal principle that a United States Bankruptcy Court simply has no right to make any valid legal decisions concerning the sovereign affairs and rights of another country, because it has no jurisdictional authority outside of the United States,

WHEREAS, since the U. S. Bankruptcy Court cannot make lawful orders over the “sovereign” internal affairs of another country, especially over a kingdom and empire that no longer exists on this earth, therefore, it simply has no legitimate authority or jurisdiction to function, and its decrees are worthless in regard to the ownership rights and sovereign prerogatives of the said Principality of Halberstadt,

WHEREAS, in addition, the laws that apply to this situation are not modern, but ancient. Hence, the wrong rules were applied. A legitimate and binding judgment would have to use the proper laws to fit the case, which did not happen. This is just another invalidating point effectively demonstrating how this case was botched by ignoring important realities. The seminal point is, Westphalian sovereignty, or sovereignty that cannot lawfully be interfered with was in full sway or operative at the time this principality became an independent entity. This legal understanding that was created by treaty in the seventeenth century made a sovereign prince accountable to no one, such that, no one could legally or rightfully take a monarch’s title and right to rule away from him. That is, such a prince might lose “de facto” ruling rights by reason of a forced abdication or take over, but could never lose his actual “de jure” or legal and legitimate right to be the rightful ruler over his own property or his own territory. In other words, sovereignty was a sacrosanct principle of law in both the regnant and “de jure” form, and was considered to be absolute, indivisible, independent, exclusive, inalienable and perpetual unless given up voluntarily. Therefore, sovereignty, in such a case, is completely and totally impervious and immune to any interventions or judgments by any country other than it’s own and then only by the freewill consent of the sovereign ruler of that country,

WHEREAS, in summary, the U. S. Bankruptcy Court (1) was in violation of legal propriety by using laws that have no legal bearing, basis or relevance in regard to ancient “de jure” sovereignty, (2) it was, in addition, illegally operating out of it’s proper jurisdiction, having no authority in matters which pertain entirely and exclusively to international law and the jurisdiction of the World Court, and/or (3) it was also illegally functioning outside its authority in the sovereign internal affairs of another country–that of the Federal Republic of Germany, and lastly, (4) it rendered a decree involving the wrong century or period of time as pertaining to nations that no longer exist on a “de facto” basis anywhere on the earth. As a result, the U. S. Bankruptcy Court was totally out of sync–it was totally out of the bounds of its legal authority in its deliberations and conclusions, thereby, making them completely empty and useless. Being null and void, it means that the Court sale of the Principality of Halberstadt never legally or lawfully took place. Hence, any legal objections to the “Section on Abandonment and Repossession” are mute, irrelevant and immaterial,

WHEREAS, because there is no court on earth having proper jurisdiction in which this “Declaration of Full and Complete Ownership” can be legitimately challenged that would actually accept such a case (not the World Court, not the European Union, not the Council of Europe’s European Court on Human Rights, nor the Courts of the Federal Republic of Germany), therefore, this declaration becomes, in effect, irrefutable and incontestable. In other words, it cannot ever be annulled or made legally invalid except by its creator and author. Again, because it stands on immovable, solid legal ground and cannot be contested, neutralized, vacated or set aside except by its author, it becomes permanently binding and unalterable by any outside or external force except as authorized by the rightful owner of that sovereignty,

WHEREAS, the International Commission on Nobility and Royalty (www.nobility-royalty.com) confirm and reiterate in their declared statement on sovereignty that once sovereignty is given (as in this case, where all the ancient rights were permanently and legally transferred to me) such sovereignty is given and extended forever, and it cannot be taken away by force or coercion. It is a fairly well-known, immutable international principle for a “de jure” sovereign, feudal prince or any other sovereignty that “any agreement signed [or made] under duress [that is, any agreement made under protest or by force or even the threat of force] is void.” (Article 52 of the Vienna Conventions of the Law of Treaties) In other words, another reason the Bankruptcy Court sale is void is that I was coerced against my express wishes and official protest in violation of International law. Therefore, the Principality was never rightfully or lawfully surrendered. This is simply a matter of public record. The point being, as long as rightful succession continues in a family, no uprising, no war, no revolution, court order or referendum can legally take away lawful hereditary regnant or “de jure” sovereignty.

WHEREAS, “. . . A prince [holding true ancient sovereignty as I do] is more than a private citizen whose relations are governed by the municipal law of his domicile,” that is, such a person is obviously subject to the ordinary laws of the country he lives in, but is above all domestic federal courts in terms of his rights to ancient sovereignty. It all boils down to the fact that “. . . Princes of sovereign houses are 'international public persons,” whether “de jure” or presently reigning. Therefore, only a World Court could take jurisdiction in such a case, and a World Court, by law and tradition, would always sustain, support and uphold sovereignty, that is, they would never violate their own laws. In other words, “de jure” sovereignty remains permanently intact in the hands of its owner and no power on earth can take those hereditary rights away. And if it were taken, it could only be done by an authorized World Court, and even then, it would have to be by the voluntarily consent of the owner of those sovereign rights, for good cause and not in violate any international law, such as, doing it under duress or by coercion. (Quotes are from Professor Stephen Kerr, an international litigator for the World Court in an article on “Dynastic Law”)

WHEREAS, the U. S. Federal Bankruptcy court was clearly out in left field in a number of basic, fundamental areas and never had any rightful authority to handle this asset, therefore, its court degree is rendered completely and totally inept, empty, useless and of no legal impact or weight. That is, to all practical purposes, the Title and Principality of Halberstadt never changed hands, nor was it conveyed to the defunct and non-existent corporation specified above. Therefore, on this basis, as well as ALL of the above well-established legal principles as presented, absolutely no loss took place in terms of sovereignty, title, honor, or legitimate claim to said Principality. And if it did, which is impossible according to the above principles, the property was legally and lawfully abandoned, as stated above, in the “abandonment and repossession section,” and is hereby officially and rightfully claimed by this and a previous permanently binding declaration,

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FOREVER KNOWN THAT, I, (name redacted), declare under oath and the penalty of law that I am the true and legal owner of the said feudal Principality of Halberstadt and own without exception “all the rights, privileges, honours and emoluments” thereunto appertaining and retain it as my sole, exclusive and permanent property in perpetuity in favor of my heirs for both now and forever, or to alienate to whomsoever I will or keep as a permanent possession at my discretion,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that ownership of the Principality of Halberstadt, or Das Füstentum Halberstadt, includes the exclusive noble, royal or aristocratic regalian right to personally, professionally or commercial use the titles of Prince or Princess of Halberstadt or any others pertaining to this sovereignty or the equivalent of such in any foreign language, with the additional right to use the prenominal titles of His or Her High Born, His or Her Serene Highness (HSH), or His or Her Most Serene Highness (HMSH) or any others pertaining to this sovereignty or the equivalent of them in any foreign language. And that no other person or group of people anywhere on earth has the right or is entitled to use the above titles of Halberstadt without the express written authorization of said owner.

IN ADDITION, this declaration contains the entire stipulations on ownership of the Principality of Halberstadt and may not be changed or terminated orally, but only by a written instrument executed after the date of this permanently binding declaration by the rightful proprietor of said property. This Declaration of Full and Complete Ownership consists of eleven pages. The Certification and Notarization pages are on page 12 and page 13 respectifvely.

The “Deed of Transfer” gave me “all the Rights, Privileges, Honors, and Emoluments” of the Principality of Halberstadt. In other words, all ownership and the full “de jure” right to rule the ancient territory and use its titles --- everything, that is, pertaining to this Feudal possession according to the “Schedule” contained in this Title document, was fully and completely conveyed, conferred or granted to perpetuity upon me and my heirs forever. (Please see the “Deed of Transfer” and “Statutory Declarations”)

Section one of the “Schedule” in the “Deed of Transfer” states that “The Feudal Title or feudal manorial titles of the Honors or feudal Principality of Halberstadt or the same said fief by whatever other name it many have been known in history. . .” was given. This statement seems a little confusing until it is broken down. First of all, the phrase “feudal manorial titles” does not refer to non-noble English “Lord of the Manor” titles that were a part of many feudal territories in England. Rather, we are talking about the transfer of a full fledged principality and its divisions and honors, that is, “The Feudal Title . . . or feudal Principality of Halberstadt” itself was conveyed as well as its other “honors” and “titles” or territories. These additional titled “Honors” or “feudal manorial titles” that belonged to the principality were conveyed with the main title of Halberstadt. They were a part of the conveyance, but were not mentioned by name.

A “feudal manorial title” in Europe (Halberstadt is European or German) is a seigneurial title, which meant anything from a tiny little village to a vast domain; such that, European “feudal manorial titles,” as specified in the Deed of Transfer, could be as great and vast as a whole principality or even a kingdom (some kingdoms in the past were actually seigneurial or sovereign fiefs). The word “seigneur (lord of the manor) [or feudal manorial lord] applied to anyone possessing a fief [which could be a principality, a county, a barony or a small territory] . . . . [In other words] The term was often used to imply a grand seigneur, or a noble of high rank or status [such as, a prince or count].” (2009: http://wapedia.mobi/en/French_nobility?t=1) In fact, “Sire and seigneur . . . is still the style of addressing a prince of the blood, and sire that of a king. . . .” (R. T. Hampson, Origines Patriciae; or, Deduction of European Titles of Nobility and Dignified Offices from their Primitive Sources, 1846, p. 325) “Seigneurial rank [included] the Dukes, Marquises, Counts, Barons and Seigneurs of that country. . . .” (2010: www.archive.org/stream/newyorkgenealog00unkngoog /newyorkgenealogoounkngoog_djvu.txt) A European manor was, “The district [the land or territory whether large or small] over which a lord [duke, prince, count, baron or non-noble lord] had domain and could exercise certain rights and privileges in medieval western Europe.” (2008: www .answers. com/topic/manor) In other words, by definition, a fief or a feudal-manorial title or territory, a lordship or a seigneury could be a dukedom, principality, county or barony all the way down to a small little estate as in a typical English manor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wikihttp://www.answers.com/topic/manor)

When the terms “feudal manorial titles” and “Honors” of the “feudal Principality” are used together, it relates to the whole gamut of both feudal and manorial lords. The determining factor as to what a territory is called depends mostly the wealth of the feudal fief and the political power of its rulers. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Heerlijkheid) For example, the tiny little 9.75 square mile or 6,240 acre territory of Schauenburg-Lippe was a principality because of its wealth and the influence it had. A typical principality or county would be at least 60,000 acres or ten times larger.

A “manor” or “manorialism” had different meanings in different places throughout Europe. Manorial fiefs in Europe were very different than those in England. (www.answers.com/topicfeudalism) In the British Isles, a manor lord would rule over a very small territory consisting of 40 to a 1,700 acres. (http://huron2.aaps.k12.mi.us/smitha/HUM/PDF/www-feud.pdf) However, such small manorial lordships did not exist or were dissolved and nonexistent in the Principality of Halberstadt and much of Brandenburg as well. (Benjamin Arnold, Principalities and Territories in Medieval Germany, University of Cambridge, 1991, pp. 155-156; and Christopher Storrs, The Fiscal Military State in Eighteenth Century Europe, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2009, pp. 109-110) The landed nobility of Prussia (the junkers) were appointed to be administrative officers and soldiers rather than ruling over small territorial lordships. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junker) In Halberstadt, in particular, the Prince Bishops and Sovereign Princes did not grant small seigneuries, rather they ran the agricultural and business affairs through non-titled nobles and other officers as well as mediatized counts, who ran their counties or domains under the administration of the princely bureaucratic ruling system. (op.cit) Halberstadt had seven general areas or divisions called “states,” which they used as headquarters to administer the whole principality and other outside areas and counties as directed by the Kings of Prussia, who were the Sovereign Princes of Halberstadt and many other independent sovereign fiefs.

In other words, a feudal-manorial “fief” or seigneury in the Kingdom of Prussia, where Halberstadt existed, would “. . . range in size from vast duchies down to the area of land needed to support a single knight. Large or small, they provided the agriculture produce which was the [major] source of wealth.” (A Dictionary of World History: 2009: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O48-fief.html) The point is, the Principality of Halberstadt like many other Imperial fiefs had no small titular realms. Its only “Honors” and separate “titles” were large like many other major divisions of the Holy Roman Empire or parts of the Kingdom of Prussia. (2009: http://artflx .uchicago.edu /egi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:644.supplement2) The “feudal manorial titles” and “Honors” other than the Principality itself were its mediatized feudal fiefs or divisions --- the smallest being the Lordship or Barony of Schauen, which was about 15,000 acres in size or 15 times larger than most, if not all, of the English manorial system. The "Honors" and “feudal manorial titles” were the mediatized titled divisions that residing within its boundaries. This includes the Barony of Schauen, the Counties of Regenstein and Valkenstein, the County and Principality of Ascania or Anhalt-Aschersleben, and the Lordships of Derenbourg and Hessen. (2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Principality _of_Halberstadt) These were the only fiefs, seigneurs or lordships in the whole of the land.

One of the additional “Honors” of Halberstadt also includes being an Imperial or Royal “Prince of the Holy Roman Empire,” because Halberstadt was a very prominent, full-fledged, sovereign State of Imperial Germany (the first reich), and its territory had a vote in the Council of Princes of the Empire --- the second most powerful council of the land. The important thing here is that each and every title or feudal-manorial dominion belonging to “The Honors or feudal Principality of Halberstadt [were conferred via this conveyance] . . . .” They did not need to be mentioned by name as it is not only obvious by history, but it is obvious what those feudal-manorial fiefs were by looking at the ancient maps. All these titles and honors were included as integral, fundamental parts of the honors, titles and territories conveyed or transferred with the Principality.

The Deed of Transfer specified that the transfer excluded “. . . the Demesne Lands, the corporeal estate of the feudal barony and Advowson.” This means the conveyance excludes or does not include the tangible land of the barony or any Church titles or rights as well as any land owned by the crown (Demesne Lands) used for personal or private use, such as, the land immediately around a palace or estate. However, no demesne lands exist within the boundaries of the Principality.

Section two of the “Schedule,” states that “this sale does not include any other subsumed or merged title or other hereditament not specifically enumerated herein. . . .” Since it was “specifically enumerated” above in Section One that all rightful “feudal manorial titles,” and “honors” belonging to the Principality were conferred or given in the deed of conveyance along with the feudal principality itself, this sentence can only refer to other unknown subsumed claims of the “incorporeal hereditatment” or said feudal property that were not obvious.

Every imperial principality, with a long colorful history, has both questionable and solid claims to domains and titles. Halberstadt was no exception. It was common practice for a noble family in the Holy Roman Empire to use the title of a territory it did not own when it either: (1) owned a territory in the past, or (2) it still claimed the “de jure,” legal or lawful right to a particular land that was wrongfully taken from them. (2007: http://web.archive.org/web/20071110132006/www.geocities.com/vrozn/Constit.html & 2009: http://sam_smith1_07755.tripod.com /The.Holy.Roman.Empire/id19.html) Such subsumed claims, however, would be inappropriate or nonsensical to this transfer under modern constructs and conventions and are therefore logically considered outside the authorizations of this conveyance. The Counties of Hohnstein, Weterlingen, Hainburg and Blankenburg, for example, were subsumed or merged titles, which were at one time a part of the Principality or Prince/Bishopric, but were legally and lawfully lost prior to the time the Principality was illegally usurped from the Kingdom of Prussia by Napoleonic Wars. The Principality was returned to the Imperial and Royal House of Hohenzollern in 1815 without these former possessions. Hence, they cannot be included as part of the “feudal manorial titles or Honors” thereof.

Sections one and two of the “Schedule,” specify that this transfer was inclusive, full and complete without any exception. Even the “de jure” or intangible right to own all the corporeal land was included, except for the territory of the barony, but it did not exclude its titles, only the incorporeal ownership of the real or royal estate of the barony. Therefore, I can, with that one exception, with impunity and confidence, declare my ownership to be full, complete and absolute according to this official document that originally gave me all the “de jure” ownership, sovereignty, regal rights, titles, honors and royal privileges thereof for that is precisely what the Deed of Transfer specifically decrees.

The corrected and legalized Statutory Declaration of June 2000 recognized the right to use the prenominal title of His [Most] Serene Highness (H.S.H.). It specifies and confirms that the document (the Deed of Transfer) made it binding that [name redacted] “hold(s) for now and forever unto himself and his heirs the feudal Principality of Halberstadt,” which is “that the feudal Principality of Halberstadt, a personal, alienable, incorporeal property, be held by the said Mr. [name redacted], in perpetuity in favor of his heirs.” And this is “in the full recognition that he is the sole owner of the said Principality of Halberstadt.”

The November 2000 Statutory Declaration reiterates that Mr. [name redacted] is “the legitimate holder of the Feudal Principality of Halberstadt . . . that he is now and forever [the sole and exclusive owner of] the Feudal Prince of Halberstadt as per the Deed of Transfer made to him.” The stockholders of the incorporated Trust granting all the rightful titles, honors and rights of said Principality, being “members of the Imperial and Royal Hohenzollern Family” and lawful heirs had the right to legally convey the Principality and all its ancient regal rights and privileges in full accordance with international law.

By way of explanation, the title was conveyed outside of German domestic law, which presently outlaws or forbids such conveyances. However, German law is only binding within its own borders. Hence, as stated in the May and June 2000 Statutory Declarations, the transfer of all the honors and “de jure” ownership of said Principality were “executed in accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Her Majesty's other realms and possessions beyond the seas,” such that, the conveyance was legally and lawfully executed.

As a result or in conclusion, this transfer of ownership, sovereign privileges, titles and rights to myself, [name redacted], was most inclusive, all encompassing and complete. The Deed of Transfer and Statutory Declamations were signed and witnessed according to law and the Deed of Transfer was legalized or made further permanent by an Apostille through the authority granted to representatives of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on March 22, 2000 in England. Therefore, I am making this addendum a part of the “Declaration of Full and Complete Ownership” that was signed and dated 11 May 2006 to further clarify and proclaim the truth pertaining to this important conveyance.

If you have been victimized by Mr. Boada, Mr. Williams or Mr. Pitts-Tucker, it’s time to make criminal complaints and sue them for the detestable things they have done to you and many others. It’s like the saying, “United we stand divided we fall.” Only when the authorities see that hundreds have actually been robbed and cheated, will they put a priority on this serious case. Go to “The Answer” for more information.