The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty    |     home
The Second Defamation Web Page of the Self-Styled Abbey-Principality of San Luigi
The Second Defamation Web Page of the Self-Styled Abbey-Principality of San Luigi
This article is another article reluctantly offered. It is not our practice, or policy, or desire to publish exposés of false claims. We would not make this article public if this group did not set up derogatory web page focused on us. (This article was placed on the internet 12/09/2014 only because the Abbey has continued their attack.)

          We have determined, and given our word, to take this article down provided they permanently remove their articles from the worldwide web. We take our promises seriously.

          As to this and all other articles, the truth is the only standard we will use and live by. Our motto is "Based on Solid Evidence," which is our continued practice as a public service, and this principle will always be maintained to the best of our ability.

The second offensive web page to be addressed can be seen by clicking on the following words -- "offensive web page." This page has been copied and electronically filed away as of November 20, 2014 to hold them accountable for what they have wrongfully asserted.
In the first paragraph, they attack us by name. This is getting very juvenile and typical of low life's, not the work of piety or devotion to high moral principles that should characterize a Christian Abbey. This is where hypocrisy rears its ugly head over and over. UnChristian like conduct is rampant in their articles on us, which are sadly composed of a great deal of misinformation.
They accuse us of "an ongoing campaign of harassment." Of course, they provide no proof or evidence for such. There is none. Neither have they bothered to ask us about the past or what happened. They merely assume this, but as always, "assumptions are not facts."
The articles presently on our website never would have been published if it was not for their public and disgraceful attacks against us, which they still maintain in spite of how they misrepresent us. Nevertheless, the offer still stands. We will take down our web pages on them, if they take down theirs. It is not our desire to expose them, but we will set the record straight, which is what all our articles are about. We have been very patient about this as their attacks have been on the internet for months before we have responded.
Second paragraph: The Abbey here charges us with writing "a poorly-argued, intemperately-worded and factually deficient article that sought to attack and libel us." This article in question on their lack of any right to sovereignty was an objective and truthful article that was part of a private newsletter sent privately only to our members (about 60 of them). It was later sent to a Royal House, which we were contractually obligated to warn them about getting involved with bogus groups. The article may be seen for what it is at:
In this paragraph, they repeat a faulty argument from their earlier web page on us. It is an exact quote. We have already exposed it in the previous article to this, but will point out that their only evidence to support their claim that all commissions have no valid opinions is that we did not state who wrote our article on them. It doesn't take a brilliant person to know that this kind of thinking is erroneous and flawed. Many organization publish short articles without authorship. In fact, they do the same thing. If you take a journey through their website.
Third paragraph: It amazes us that it is stated in this paragraph,  ". . . it is difficult to take seriously the 'scholarship' of a man who cannot use an apostrophe correctly." Truth is not dependant on an apostrophe. This is a very weak and feeble argument that makes it "difficult to take seriously [their] 'scholarship'. . . ."
The third paragraph reiterates their complaint about the fact that we sent out a private newsletter article on them to private individuals, and warned a royal house about their mistake in being involved with a dubious organization that makes impossible claims.
It is noteworthy that they avoid challenging the facts we have presented, but instead use an old juvenile practice of name calling or labeling like making the statement without substantiation that our article is "inaccurate and defamatory material." Again, the article may be seen for what it really is at: It is neither inaccurate or deflamatory. Rather it is truthful and uses proper documentation.
Fourth paragraph:  The Abbey here complains about our private complaints to them via email and a letter about their public article attacking us. The statement is made, "The communication threatened that if we did not remove our response, they would publish their original article on their website; an oddly hollow threat given that we have already addressed the matters concerned thoroughly in our response and thereby exposed those issues to the public for the past eighteen months." It was not a "hollow threat," but one which we reluctantly and patiently followed through with eventually since we found them to be immoveable or intractable. They never communicated back. Never tried to discuss anything, but responded with further public attacks to our private message. Again, not the proper response for a Christian or for a Christian Abbey. They consistently fail to follow the teachings of their profession, which is, again, an act of hypocrisy, which Christ sternly declared was so bad as to be in practice "whited sepulchers," which "appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones." (Matthew 23:27) It is a serious matter to profess one thing and do the opposite.
Being hard pressed to find any genuine fault to attack us with, they resorted to quoting a sentence with an error in it from an email as though this was a big deal. In other words, their attacks focus on minor-unimportant issues that have little relevance, and at the same time distance themselves from the core issue -- the impossibility of their sovereign or regal claims.
Fifth paragraph: They continue to avoid the facts of history, such as, the fact that, "In 1957, Girardot [one of the founders of this organization] recanted his 1883 foundation story."[1] Instead they focus on some recognitions that supposedly makes everything better. The Abbey concluded, in this paragraph, that a recognition by the late King Peter ". . . constitutes all the recognition that we might require, and render debate on our historical origins entirely moot." Really? Does a recognition change everything? The answer is that recognition cannot make something false in history into something true or real. In fact, ". . . Sovereignty is neither created by recognition nor destroyed by nonrecognition.” (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, edition 15, part 3, vol 17, 1981, p. 312) The point is, international law denies that diplomatic or political recognition confers sovereignty or has the power to change reality or historical facts. The idea that a recognition could ". . . render debate on our historical origins entirely moot" is obviously far-fetched or out of harmony what is factual or known truth.
Sixth paragraph: The Abbey complains that we did not confer with them or seek their response to our private newsletter article in advance of its private distribution. It, however, was a private communication, not a public one. The other thing is, if we should have contacted them before we published a short article on a private basis, what about them contacting us before, what is far worse, "publically" attacked us?  In fact, they have never contacted us. We contacted them and invited them to communicate with us, but they would not. Are they saying that anyone who communicates a private message about the Abbey must get clearance first? But, on the other hand, it is alright for them to publish things about others "publically" without checking out their facts out first. This is what is called a double standard and it is wrong. They do what they expect others not to do. It is the old adage that one should "walk the walk" instead of merely "talking the talk." This is an act of blatant hypocrisy.
Seventh paragraph: This article brings up the faulty argument about recognition again as though recognition confers sovereignty or makes falsehoods into something true. See what is written about the fifth paragraph.
Eighth paragraph: Here they complain about how part of our article got published on a wiki article, which exposes their false claims. The article in question is entitled the "Vilatte Orders" and can be see at Then click on the "Talk" tab. They make the erroneous conclusion that we are into attacking others. This is not our inclination or policy. These public articles presently on our website have only been written to set the record straight and will come down as soon as they remove their attacks. As to our article on Wiki, we believe we can get them to remove it as we have done for other copyrighted material on the internet. We can't promise this, but Wikipedia is much more sensitive to copyright violations than the Abbey, who are willing to violate the rights of others. The promise still stands that if the Abbey is willing to remove their unwarrented and sladerous attacks, we will go to bat for them.
Ninth paragraph: The Abbey in this paragraph manifest legal ignorance by trying to make the point that we could not be an international organization if we were incorporated domestically. They fail to realize that thousands international companies are domestically incorporated. In fact, there is no international corporation laws. This is an attempt to make something out of nothing or it is a matter of obvious corporate ignorance. We are not sure which it is. But they continue to manifest a lack of knowledge or understanding by saying because we chose to dis-incorporate that we are a "defunct outfit," which is again an example of the juvenile or childish act of name calling.
We are continuing to operate like millions of other organizations that were, or never were, corporations, only on a different level. We still have a board of directors and serve several royal houses. If they questioned us about these things, they would have known that this line of reasoning was misguided and unfounded. They either assumed a falsehood and published it, or they have willfully violated decency principles and maliciously stretch the truth into malevolent nonsense. In either case, this an unrighteous act unbecoming a Christian Abbey
Tenth paragraph: The Abbey prides itself on being a charitable organization and then implies that The International Commission gets money for their services and then they make the implication that we are somehow a bad organization for do this so we can pay our bills. But the truth of the matter is, if they really read our website, they would have known that no one has ever received any wages from its operations. We are all volunteers. No one gets paid. So we are, and always were, in effect, a non-profit, charitable organization.
Eleventh paragraph: Finally, they have brought up something that could have been, but is just some more nonsense without any substance.  As usual, it is a mere distractions or diversion to keep the reader away from the facts that show their claims to be a principality and have a valid fons honorum or right of sovereignty are utterly false. (See article on this at:
The only problem is our failure was merely an oversight or honest mistake, not a willful violation of law as they would like people to believe. That is on two other pages we make it clear that we are no longer a corporation. For example: On the web page entitled, "Policy Changes (2014)," which can be seen at, it states:
The International Commission will downsize from a for-profit business corporation to a voluntary service organization in 2014
This will take some time, but we feel greater service will be possible through this move.  The Commission will continue to operate with a board of directors, but will no longer be a corporation. All ethical practices, including all former checks and balances, will be maintained to ensure the highest standard of work will continue.
On our home page (, we put:
In addition to proving ourselves to be a business organization of integrity, while operating as a for-profit business, the Commission achieved the highest rating of an "A+" while we operated as a business through the "Better Business Bureau® In Northern Nevada." That is, on a scale of A+ to F, the commission received the following:
"BBB® Non-Accredited A+ Rating"
This rating was based on 16 factors showing sustained general continuity, dependability and integrity for a long period of time. The BBB may be contacted at: (Better Business Bureau, 2013:
However, since the International Commission is no longer a business, but has downsized to a become a strictly voluntary service organization, continuing as a though we were a business, makes no sense.  
We will, of course, continue to serve the best that we can and uphold all our former standards for truth and integrity.
The positive honors we have achieved in the past will be continued. Ideals and ethics are important to us and will continue to be a guiding factor in all our decisions. It is central to all that we do.
This important change was announced to our 60+ members in January or February of 2014 in a newsletter, the Chamber of Commerse on the Web was informed, and to the Internal Revenue Service was told officially as required and on the special forms provided for such. That is, we fully complied with law. The fact that it stated on one web page that we are a corporation was an insignificant oversight that has already been corrected. Our website is so large that it encompasses more than 50 articles and over 800 pages. It is very easy to miss something and therefore leave it uncorrected.
The above complaint consisted of paragraphs eleven through fourteen on the web page in question. In summary: As with all of their complaints, they are either insignificant or non-issues. Lacking any valid complaints, they try to make mountains our of mole hills, but a mole hill is only a little thing and nothing more. And fabricating and making things up is to falsify.
Fifteenth paragraph: Here the Abbey attempts again to attack us personally always avoiding the core issue about their false claims. Much of this web page is a distraction technique or ploy used by people who wish to avoid the real issues and steer people away from their folly. Again, their attack is UnChristian-like and lacks the moral virtues that should belong to a so-called Christian organization.
They also violate copyright laws by posting without permission copied image from Oracle International. Apparently, they either do not care about what is rightful or are ignorant of the law.
The distraction or diversion technique used here was to point out an old 2003 report that discredited a purchase made by one of us. Interestingly, this report was commissioned, paid for and placed on the internet by the very person they are trying to demonize. The Law Society of England and Wales later spent over 300,000 English pounds to thoroughly investigating this situation and other similar situations and could not prove any of them to be fraudulent.
The full and complete purpose of their putting this information on the internet was to try to discredit and attack. They never asked us any questions about it. It was not their object to find out the truth or publish facts. They willfully stretch things to demean.
They obviously do not realize that many prominent and important individuals have joined false organizations or phony orders of chivalry including Guye Stair Sainty and other high profile people. Many of these men discovered their mistakes and corrected their path. This is, unfortunately, not an uncommon situation and it involves medical doctors and other high level professionals. It is one of the purpose of The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty to protect people from counterfeiters and royal impersonators. There are over 50 fake princes and over 100 phony knighthoods on the internet who rob and cheat innocent, unsuspecting people. The Abbey is one of these.
Sixteenth paragraph: The Abbey implies in this paragraph that they do not believe anyone, especially the International Commission, should attempt to protect people from fakes on the internet. They wrongfully call this vigilantism. However, this does not represent good thinking as it is a perfectly legitimate, needed and useful endeavor. As a service and educational organization, we promote what is genuine and authentic in the earth and do what we can to spare people the humiliation and wasted money from being scammed or taken advantage by the virtual plethora of crooks. There are more charlatans imitating royalty and impersonating non-territorial sovereignty now than at any other time in the history of mankind.
Both the sixteeth and seventeenth paragraphs declare that they disdain the sale of falsehoods, but then they add an innuendo or insinuation that the Commission probably knows some of these, in effect, bad people.
Eighteeth paragraph: This paragraph doesn't make much sense or is not clearly stated, but the first part somehow concludes that for some unclear, unsubstaniated, unexplained reason that it should ". . . immediately throw into the severest doubt any claim that was made as to their expertise." Then they imply that anyone who made a mistake in the nobility or royalty field could not be an expert. If this is so, how do they explain Guy Stair Sainty, who is an expert and was a member of a fake order once. This kind of logic is not reasonable, logical or rational, yet it is the kind of shallow thinking that has manifested itself several times in this web page. It is grasping a straws and has no solid foundation in common sense.
Nineteeth paragraph: Here the Abbey makes the statement that the Commission is ". . . an American for-profit corporation consisting of two named officers that lacks the slightest authority to certify anything." First of all, they just got through saying in several paragraphs that we are not a corporation, so you have to wonder about their mental acuity or alertness as they contradict themselves. Second, they fail to quote the fact that:

Other officers of the ICNR include an individual who holds a JD degree and is a practicing attorney, plus five other officers who hold bachelors degrees and a nurse. Again, no one makes any money. All are volunteers who enable this organization to accomplish its purposes inexpensively so as to provide a public service to people all over the world. Beside the officers, there are over 60 regular and certified members.

We are not a two man show, and never have been. As to authority to certify, various non-government organizations have certified various skills, rights or talents for hundreds of years. Unions are one example. In the field of counseling and therapy, the American Psychotherapy Association (APA) certifies various expertise in specific fields of treatment. Non-government Medical associations do the same. In other words, some of the things stated in this article show manifest ignorance of how things work in the world, which is a sad reflection on them.

Twentieth paragraph: They quote a policy that was removed from our website many years ago and then again violated copyright laws by publishing an image of the deleted, but still copyrighted page. They criticize us for some words that no longer exist as though we still practice it.

And even if we did still practice it, there is nothing wrong with raising money to promote constitutional monarchy just like it is no crime to raise money to promote other forms of govenrment or in elections for one's cause. So again, they try to make something large out that is insignificant.  

Lastly, in this paragraph, they make the snide remake that the, "The sale of titles is still the sale of titles, whether the transaction is for dukedoms or “high diplomates and fellows.” Obviously, they do not know that diplomates and fellows are honorary titles that are often given to worthy individuals who contribute to organizations. For example, many European and American accredited and prominent universities give out honorary doctorates to those who contribute to their causes -- something out of nothing again! Such practices are not wrong, but common. Again, because they cannot find anything definitive to attack us with, they make something out of nothing or use distraction, slander or other distortions. It is not an honorable practice.

Twenty-first paragraph: Here the Abbey complains that we have a long disclaimer. So what? Long or short, this is irrelevant to the fact that their claims to sovereignty are blatantly false.

Then they quote us as saying that there is something fundamentally wrong with the fact that we stated that part of our cause is to "make the world safe for democracy” in effect. This criticism reflects a poor understanding of modern constitutional monarchy, which includes a combination of monarchy with a democratic legislature or parliament. In other words, democracy is a part of modern monarchy as practiced in most countries. The full quotes is:

It is important to the Commission's future to create an excellent reputation for fairness, unwavering integrity and good service. This, the Commission, is determined to do and to work hard to develop and cultivate the ideals of true nobility, royalty and monarchy worldwide through peaceful educational and informational means in tune with the laws of whatever country we work with. We invite you to join us in this great cause to, in effect, "make the world safe for democracy" and preserve and establish some of the greatest ideals ever known to mankind--basic human rights, freedom and liberty through the additional separation of powers that monarchy provides. (see "Ideals" and "Advantages")

To imply that our statement "make the world safe for democracy," which they used out of context, somehow proves that we are ignorant about monarchy is strange indeed.

The Abbey closes this paragraph with the sacastic remark that it is ". . . not a great surprise for one that has been initiated by Americans." They insinuate that Americans cannot know anything royal or noble. This slur against people who live in America is a bigoted remark to which they should feel ashamed.

Besides, Dr. Stephen P. Kerr, one the foremost experts in nobility and royalty is an American. He is a law professor and a former special counsel to the Imperial and Royal House of Habsburg, and the author of the two volume book, The Entitlement to Rule: Legal, Non-Territorial Sovereignty in International Law (www.entitlement-to-rule).

Twenty-second paragraph: They try to say that non-refundable fees and disclaimers link us with title-sellers or peddlers, but actual it links us with some of the most common business practices on earth. They then criticize us about our organization's logo, because it has a crown on it. They say this is inappropriate, because we do not have any royal patrons. If they had bothered to contact us they would have found out that we have contractual services with several royal houses. But again, the truth is not their concern. They would rather use insignificant, unimportant things to somehow by a stretch of the imagination imply major wrongs.

After this paragraph, they again violate copyright law by publishing an image from our website without permission. This kind of thing does not reflect goodwill or honest, law-abiding behavior.

Twenty-third paragraph: Immediately underneath the unlawful visual copy of part of a page from our website in violation of copyright rules, the Abbey again complains about our "private" article on the impossibility of their claim. They conclude that this ". . . behaviour is . . . very far from “noble." Yet they attack us "publically" and somehow think this is noble. Their "publically" attack is far worse then an article sent "privately" to our members and "privately" to a royal house, which we were contracted to warn about false claims.  

They end this little section with, ". . . one does not have to look far on the internet to find the 'Commission' described openly by others as a scam (see, for example:" There are some very mean spirited people on the internet, including the so-called Christian Abbey, buy especially those who are upset with us because in the past we used to publically expose fraudsters and fakes, which we no longer do. Hence, we have some very vengeful people, who without investigating the facts, make things up, use name calling, etc. all without substantiation, like the Abbey. The "A+" rating we received by the "Better Business Bureau" and elevated membership in the "Chamber of Commerce on the Web," have acted as substantial outside, third party, objective assurances of quality and integrity.

The last part of their web page (two paragraphs) threaten us with legal action. Not knowing the law very well, they do not realize that if they did, they would not have a leg to stand on, because all we have done is tell the truth, which is not against the law. And legally, when on is attacked publically, one has the legal right to publically defend oneself. Lastly, there is the legal principle of "unclean hands." It states that a plaintiff cannot successfully sue another who he has wronged, which they have apply done in a very public way for all to see. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands." Less elegantly, it is "A dirty dog will not be given satisfaction." The "unclean hands doctrine," as a principle of justice, protects the publically abused from the wrongful legal attacks.

In summary, everything they have complained about or criticized on this page has turned out to be nothing but stretches or deceitful and intellectually dishonest attacks, which reflect poorly on themselves, which is very obvious to see with a little digging. Distorting reality is not what one would expect of a self-professed Christian organization. It is an act of hypocrisy most strongly condemned by the person they profess to devotely worship. Seen as it is, this page, along with the others, sadly reveals numerous unethical, dishonest and worst of all anti-Christian acts for a Christian Abbey. The conclusion is obviously not very favorable to them.

In closing, we again ask them to stop their wrongful attack. If they do, we will remove our articles. If not, we will be forced to address their third offensive web page and again expose more of their un-Christian like conduct, their deceptive comments and blatant hypocrisy. This is not what we want to do, but the truth needs to be told.

However, if they remove their articles, as promised, we will remove ours and leave it at that.


All the major legal principles and concepts that promote genuine and true nobility, royalty and chivalry are contained in the following new book. Note what is says in the first paragraph of the Foreword:

The whole field of nobility and royalty is in disarray and confusion. It is rife with falsehoods, misguided experts, phony princes, and counterfeit chivalric orders. 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.

            The author is Dr. Stephen Baca y Kerr, JD, LLM, MAT, former special counsel to the Imperial and Royal House of Habsburg, Professor and Dean of the Law School at the International College of Interdisciplinary Sciences. His book is The Entitlement to Rule: Legal, Non-Territorial Sovereignty in International Law and it is a masterpiece. Note excerpts of what people have said about both volumes:

"It is magnificently done and of great worth." (Adalberto J. Urbina Briceno, Sc.D., Professor Head of the Public International Law Chair of the Catholic University Andres Bello- Caracas)

"It is a goldmine of references and is a valuable account of a [thought provoking] . . . and poorly understood area of law." (Rev'd Professor Noel Cox, LLM, MA, MTheol, Ph.D., LTh, FRHists, Barrister, Aberystwyth University, New Zealand)

"Dr. Kerr has put together a book that is a "one of a kind" providing what is needed to perpetuate the rights of deposed sovereignty. For all those interested in the legal future of nobility and royalty, this is a very important, scholarly and insightful book to read." (LaWanna Blount, Ph.D., F.Coll.T, vice president and professor at the American College of Interdisciplinary Sciences, Como, Mississippi, USA)

"It is written in a clear and compelling manner. It is hoped that more and more people will become familiar with the laws of justice contained in this book." (Thubten Samphel, director of the Tibet Policy Institute of the Central Tibetan Administration and author of the book Falling Through the Roof, Dharamshala, India)

"Dr. Kerr's book . . . is one of those . . . path breaking works that throws new light on a field of study . . . on the complex legal and philosophical sinews that keep alive [deposed] monarchies. . . . This type of writing fills a huge gap within the royal studies field. . . ." (Dr. Diana Mandache, historian and author, Budapest, Romania)

"The author obviously has a deep understanding of international law and how it relates to deposed monarchies and exiled governments. The content is well structured and well written. I accept this book as conforming to the highest academic standards expected of a master scholar and practitioner." (Alexander Arapov, Sc.D., Professor of the Department of Philosophy and Sociology of the All-Russian State Distance-Learning Institute of Finance and Economics, a branch of the Financial University of the Russian Federation)

"This has been the most interesting and helpful book I have read in the field of nobiliary law as well as international law . . . . It exemplifies the highest level of scholarly content, clarity and depth of inquiry yet presented on this profound and important subject." (Prof. Dr. Mirjana Radovic-Markovic, Academician, Institute of Economic Sciences and Faculty of Business Economics and Entrepreneurship, Belgrade, Serbia)

            The first volume of 370 pages can be obtained as an ebook for a donation of $10.00 to the International Commission on Nobility and Royalty. You will need to have an Adobe Reader to enjoy it. The ebook will shortly be available on Amazon, etc., but can be obtained now for $10.00 instead of a higher price later on. The second volume is due to come forth later this year.


For "Contact" information or to join the Commission as a contributor or apply for certification for titles, knighthood, status or ancestry, please first read the "Disclaimer and Obligatory Contract." If you fully agree with them, you are welcome to contact us, make contributions, answer our survey and/or become a part of this important cause. Our goals and mission are to protect the public from counterfeit titles, phony knighthoods and fake genealogies. We also want to certify the true and the genuine as well as promote chivalry, royalty and nobility. We need your support. There is so much that needs to be done. We invite you to contribute and join with us.

Contact or donate through the following:
For Membership or to become Certified, please read "Membership Categories, Fees, Evidence Requirements & Standards."
When you are ready to move ahead with membership or certification, go to "Enrollments and/or Contributions" or "Registration or Certification."
© Copyright 2005/2009 -- International Commission on Nobility and Royalty.  All Rights Reserved.
previous up next