The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty | home
First Defamation Web Page of the Self-Styled Abbey-Principality of San Luigi
(See Additional Articles below)
See the following articles:
Since the Abbey have not responded to our invitation that we both remove our articles, we are forced to set the record straight and expose their empty complaints as well as their obvious hypocrisy and dishonesty. This is not what we want to do, but so that the public can have a fair and balanced view of the truth -- an insight into the things are they are, we will proceed. The invitation still stands that we will remove our pages as soon as circumstances warrant it.
The first web page to be addressed can be seen at http://san-luigi.org/publications/currentdocuments/response-to-the-international-commission-on-nobility-and-royalty-december-2012. It is entitled: "Response to 'The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty', December 2012." This page has been copied as of November 20, 2014 to hold them accountable for what they have wrongfully asserted.
Although, this article is a fairly innocuous one, it is another excellent example of hypocrisy and faulty reasoning. The second paragraph presents one of a number of humerous statements:
By way of initial remarks, however, we must firstly comment on the authorship of this article. It would appear, from the material sent to us, that no person dares put his or her name to it and admit to being its author. It seems odd that a body that seeks to comment on issues of nobility and royalty should itself be so neglectful of the basic principles of honour, namely that if you wish to accuse another, you must do so openly and answer for the consequences. Not to do so – to hide behind a corporate name, and to skulk in the shadows of anonymous speech – may well be in keeping with the spirit of today’s internet “flame wars” but it is not the act of a gentleman. (second paragraph)
Hypocritically, they do not reveal who is the author of any of their three defamation articles against us, or on practically any article on their whole website. This is an incriminating example of the "Pot calling the kettle black?" That is, they are obviously guilty of the very thing they complain about, which they say represents "skulking," a "neglect of the basic principles of honour," and "not the act of a gentleman." In other words, they apparently "neglect . . . the basic principles of honour." That is, they do not live up to their own professed values. This is an act of hypocrisy, or what the Saviour of mankind described as being ". . . like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead mens bones, and of all uncleanliness." (Matthew 23:27) The Abbey should not merely talk the talk, but walk the walk of true Christians, which they claim to be.
The third paragraph was obviously written against all "commissions" that concern themselves with nobility, royalty or chivalry. They, in effect, declare them all to be without authority or scholarly standing. This, of course, is obviously because none of them consider the Abbey to have any validity. Hence, they manifest sour grapes.
They say that none of them have any Royal patronage, are objective or scholarly, which is false. If they had done their homework, they would know that each of the three commissions: The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty, The International Commission on Orders of Chivalry, and The International Commission and Association of Nobility are each involved with Royal Houses either as patrons, sponsors or contractual service. And each have recognized association with experts in the field of nobility and royalty.
The questions is, were they merely assuming things or outright lying? In either case, they are characteristically publishing falsehoods.
The foundation for their complaint that these organization have scholarly standing is based on nothing more than thin air. That is, they say, "Any claim to scholarly standing that is put forward by such entities is at once quashed by their insistence on anonymous authorship for their pronouncements." Using this argument, we can say with confidence that the Abbey has no "scholarly standing" because of their anonymous authorships. Or is this a rather shallow complaint as many associations, universities, ect. do not have authors listed for many of their articles?
If they do not like the fact that none of the three commission think they have a valid claim, then they ought to listen to the fact that the Abbey's ". . . Order of the Crown of Thorns (OCT) and the Order of the Lion and the Black Cross (OLBC) . . . are condemned by the Holy See and Italy lists [them] as illegal decorations." (Wikipedia, Vilatte Orders, 2014: http://en,wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilatte_Orders) This, in and of itself, is very revealing and represents a warning sign to beware of them.
The fourth paragraph complains of a lack of "due process" or "no member of the 'Commission' has at any point contacted us either to establish the facts concerned or to seek our response to their findings prior to publication." The funny thing is they never contacted us, even though we sent them numerous invitations to discuss things. Again, they are in violation of their own complaints or their own professed values.
Then they strangely concluded with an odd, extreme, radical statement, which is obvkiously again over-the-top. They say, the fact that we never contacted them is "more suited to the admirers of Stalin and Mao than to those who would call themselves royalists." But the fact is, we did contact them. They never contacted us. Should we use their logic and rightfully consider what they have done in their web pages "more suited to the admirers of Stalin and Mao than to those who would call themselves royalists?" It is a sad state of affairs that they do the very things they complain about. This statement is obviously not well-thoughtout and is hypocritical.
The fifth paragraph is short and introductory. It is innocuous and therefore needs no comment.
The sixth paragraph complains that we say their origins are unproven and then attempt to compare apples with oranges and say, ". . . not all of the famous dynasties and chivalric orders extant and 'accepted' today can prove their origins through a 'perfect' document trail that would be sufficient to satisfy a court of law." The problem here is that the origins of others are not generally vulnerable or critical to their claims of legitimacy. However, the origins of the Abbey are a core issue. They are at the very heart and soul of the matter -- crucial and decisive to their validity. For example, not only is there a lack of verifiable facts about the monastery and its origins, but most condemning of all is the fact that, "In 1957, Girardot [one of the founders of this organization] recanted his 1883 foundation story," (Girardot, Louis-Francois (2012-07-22). Theriault, Serge A, ed. Statement by Louis-Fancois Girardot regarding the Abbey-Principality of San Luigi and its Order of the Crown of Thorns, Said of the Lion and Black Cross made on August 14 and 11 October 1957. Translated by editor. Ottawa: Christian Catholic Church of Canada. Archived from the original on 2013-04-20; and Intermediarie des Chercheurs et Curieux (in French) (Paris) 21. Sep 1971. ISSN 0020-5613) This puts everything they declare into serious doubt.
In the seventh, eighth and ninth paragraphs, they admit that documentary evidence is totally lacking, but report ". . . that written testimony does indeed survive from Prince-Abbot Edmond I," but written evidence is what is called "hearsay." It is inadmissible in court for good reason as it cannot be questioned, reviewed and substantiated as factual. It is very very important to this case that Louis-Fancois Girardot recanted his testimony as stated above. The point is, ". . . missing documentation is [not] a mere chimera [fantasy or unimportant]." It is a real fact and with the admission of Girardot, there is little to substantiate their claims.
In the ninth paragraph, they belabor the problem that they do not have adequate evidence and give the excuse that their original abbot is dead and cannot testify. Then, in effect, they declare that their lack of verification or confirming proof does not matter, that courts accept the fact that documents do not exist and that there are no living witness. This, however, is in courts that only require what is called "preponderance of evidence," which is not much more than a 50/50 chance of being right, which are pretty poor odds. Cases involving sovereignty claims are much more stringent and and require conclusive proof.
The point is, in international law, if one cannot prove one's claim, then it is nothing more than wishful thinking, fantasy or, at worst, a willful falsehood or act of fraud. “. . . People are not obliged to respect that title [the title of a claimant to a throne] any farther than he shows its validity." (Emerich de Vattell, The Law of Nations, Book 2, chapter 18, no. 337) That is, rights are forfeited where ". . . original validity . . . is impossible to prove . . . ." (D. H. N. Johnson, "Acquisitive Prescription in International Law," British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 27, 1950, p. 332) To maintain their rights, a deposed royal house or exiled government must be able to ". . . establish its own legitimate rights by conclusive proof." (Pasquale Fiore, International Law Codified and its Legal Sanction: or, The Legal Sanction, 1919, p. 429.) Conclusiveness is almost always associated with the highest level of evidence possible, not by assumption, hunches, conjecture or guesswork, but by solid proof based on solid facts. ". . . . As long as the adverse party [the deposed monarch or his successor] fails to adduce substantial. . . ," that is, provide hard evidence, then his or her claim is, ". . . beyond the power of recovery [it is dead] . . . since the origin of the possession is lost in the obscurity of time. . . ." (United States Department of the Interior, Decisions of the United States Department of the Interior, vol. 81, 1975, p. 787 and Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 2, chapter 11, no. 143)
Then the tenth paragraph states that the English "Order of the Garter" origins are obscure. In providing this example, they are suggesting that the obscure and unproven origin of Abbey's sovereignty claim does not matter. However, the comparison is irrational, because the "Order of the Garter" is an order of a sovereign nation, which has a reigning monarch as its fountain of honor. There is no question about its legitimacy. The British orders are legally grounded in sovereignty. The orders of the Abbey are not based on a foundation of sovereignty like the English monarchy, but instead their questionable story was recanted by one of it founders
The eleventh paragraph merely makes an unsubstaniated claim with no backing or collaboration that they are sovereign. However, they have no legal leg to stand on. You cannot create valid secular sovereignty against the law of sovereignty. This is simply absurd because it is a legal impossibility. (Again, see the article "The Claim of Sovereignty of the Self-Styled Abbey-Principality of San Luigi")
The twelfth paragraph declares that they obtained sovereignty because others have obtain sovereignty through colonial methods. However, the situation of others were very different. The colonists obeyed the laws which create sovereignty under international law. For example, in many colonial situations throughout the earth, treaties that transferred sovereignty were created that had binding international effect. No such international sanctions ever existed for the Abbey, which settled in Africa for about one year and were driven out by the inhabitants.
Their only defense was to say that we used a quote from a source that was made more than a century before the Abbey was created. Don't they know that modern international law, including the law of sovereignty, was created more than a century before the Abbey was created? Instead of supporting their claim, this defense ends up, along with many other statements, to reflect irrational thinking or base ignorance of legal reality.
The thirteen paragraph is another far-fetched stretch of reality in an attempt to defend themselves. They stated that the "commissions" use "double standards." Their first so-called evidence for this accusation is that at one time the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry had a bigoted president. Does that mean that every president was this way or every member of their board of directors?
The other equally invalid evidence of double standards presented, by the anonymous author of the Abbey's article, was that The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty is composed of some Americans, therefore, they are prejudice because over a hundred years ago, Americans treated Native Americans very badly. Are the people of today responsible for what was done over a hundred years ago?
Neither of these two complaints are reasonable or even intelligent. Nevertheless, they actually-amazingly gave these illogical reasons as evidence that these commissions use "double standards."
The fourteenth paragraph states that the Catholic Church knows better what sovereignty is. If this is true, and they gave them sovereignty, then how come their orders of chivalry are specifically "condemned by the Holy See." (Wikipedia, Vilatte Orders, 2014: http://en,wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilatte_Orders)
The Abbey's article also defends religious sovereignty, but fails to provide any grounds for this claim. The truth of the matter is sovereignty, by its very definition, is a secular right to rule over the people of a specific territory. This pertains exclusively to the law of nations or international law. Christ even stated "My kingdom is not of this world. . . ." (John 18:36) His kingdom was spiritual, not secular. Christ did not rule the secular kingdom of the Judah. Rather, he provided an important distinction or separation between the religious and the secular, that is, "Render . . . unto Caesar, the things which are Caesar's [that is, honor his right to rule] and [render] to God the things that are God's [the importance of living a good life]." (Matthew 22:21) The fifteenth paragraph contains the statement, "It would appear that the Abbey-Principality’s willingness to defend itself, and its ability to do so comprehensively, has greatly riled those who would sit in judgement upon us." Actually, questions on the validity of claims come to the three above mentioned commissions on a regular basis. In answering peoples honest inquiries, research is conducted and short and long answers are given depending on the situation. In this case, the answer was published privately, not publically, which obviously "greatly riled those [the Abbey]." It bothered the Abbey so much that they wrote two more deceiftul web pages full of exaggerations, half truths and fabrications. The even personally attacked some of us by name. We don't do that kind of thing. The only reason these web pages are being published is to set the record straight, they will come down as soon as the Abbey takes their web pages down and we are notified of such.
This paragraph declares that they do not recognize the authority or scholarship of any of the commissions, but more specifically The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty, who have exposed their false claims. This is to be expected. None of the commissions mentioned, including the Roman Catholic Church, believe their claims have any authenticity or truth to them. Nor are they able to validate their claims either by history or law.
The sixteenth paragraph complains about the fact that the article, on their lack of sovereignty, was shared with a Royal House in Africa. However, they fail to disclose that The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty were by signed agreement contractually required to warn this House about false claims. The Commission was merely fulfilling a legal requirement. No attacks were intended. The Commission is not set up to attack others, but to warn members and interested parties privately that inquire of us about the legitimacy of claims.
The very last paragraph states:
We continue to recognize our Christian duty to stand up against those who would aggressively and falsely seek to traduce us, and doubtless we shall return to these topics at a future date. For now, however, we may reflect that “les chiens aboyent et la caravane passe”.
First of all, we have not "aggressively and falsely [sought] to taduce" (taduce means to malign) the Abbey. We had merely set out a private article to our members and contractually fulfilled our obligation to a Royal House. The Abbey, on the other hand, has attacked us publically, which forced us to respond.
The saying "les chiens aboyent et la caravane passe" means "The dogs bark, but the caravan goes by." If they really believed this, they wouldn't keep attacking us. They would not have reacted, but would have move on and not considered our once private communication to be anything more important than a barking dog. Yet they made it a big deal, over-reacted and attacked intead of contacting us and trying to resolve things.
They say it is their Christian duty to defend themselves. But is it really their Christian duty to attack us? Or, should they, as representatives of the Son of God, to be "peacemakers?" That is, which is more Christian -- to attack or to solve problems and make peace? When we asked them to remove their web pages, they attacked us even more. When we warned them we would have to defend ourselves, they added another offensive web page and offended even more personally by using some of our names. This is not what would be expected of a so-called Christian organization, which is, apparently, Christian in name only and not in works or deeds. It is their duty to be examples and let their light shine, but what they have done is full of darkness and a number of serious wrongs. We again extend the invitation for them to remove their offensive web pages on us, we would then, as promised, remove ours. If they decide not to do so, we will have to address their second defamation page and expose its flaws and wrongs as well.
This is not our desire, but if they do not have the common decency to do what is right for a Christian organization, we will proceed to further demonstrate their unfortunate proclivity to be very unChristian, that is, to lie, deceive and stretch the truth rather than be honest and truthful.
This can be averted, if they so desire. It is hoped we will soon have the privilege of removing all these articles on the Abbey. We are waiting for them to act in a positive and constructive fashion.
________________________________
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)
This unique book is being offered for free because of its singular importance to the field of nobility and royalty. Go to the website: www.entitlement-to-rule.info.
We also encourage you to read and enjoy the articles that follow, which are informative and can deepen one's understanding of the whys and wherefores as well as the true and permanent rights of royalty, nobility and chivalry. The following articles are considered to be especially important and valuable:
Use "Contact" to join the Commission as a contributor or apply for certification for titles, knighthood, status or ancestry. Our goals and mission are to protect the public from counterfeit titles, phony knighthoods and fake genealogies. We certify the true and the genuine as well as promote chivalry, royalty and nobility. There is so much that needs to be done. We invite you to contribute and join with us.
Contact or donate through the following:
© Copyright 2005/2009 -- International Commission on Nobility and Royalty. All Rights Reserved.
