You are on page 1of 7

ACT OF REVOCATION & ANNULMENT OF JUDICIARY RECOGNITION

In Re: Restoration of the Holy See of Antioch


The present Act is not an adjudication of any dispute, and is not a judiciary disposition of rights
and interests of parties to a case, but rather constitutes an exercise of the Courts right to
unilaterally declare its own position regarding a Letter of Recognition which it had issued to an
intended beneficiary. Accordingly, there is no requirement of due process, as the Act is the
equivalent of a Declaratory Judgment determining and asserting only the rights of the Court itself,
and establishing the facts as related to those rights.
The Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ) is a licensed Court of Law, empowered with
universal jurisdiction over all matters involving international law, under UN Declaration of
Human Rights (Articles 10, 28), UN Remedy for Human Rights (Articles 3(c), 5, 12, 14), UN
Right to Protect Human Rights (Articles 1, 3, 5, 9.1-9.2), UN Justice for Abuse of Power (Articles
5, 7), and UN Independence of Judiciary (Articles 3, 9.4), operating as a United Nations NGO
institution having statutory authority of international law to officially perform judiciary functions
worldwide.
The entity presently representing itself as the Holy See of Antioch, and its principals Paul
Joseph Burton and Paul Vincent Roberts, are hereby placed on legal notice, that the letter of
Judiciary Recognition of Nation-State Status from the Arbitration Court of International
Justice, issued for the Holy See of Antioch on 09 September 2014, is hereby revoked by
annulment as void, on the following legal grounds presented throughout this Act, on the basis
of a fundamental change in circumstances.
Annulment by Fundamental Change in Circumstances
On 09 September, this Court issued a letter of Judiciary Recognition to a restoration of the
historical institution of the Holy See of Antioch, as arranged and agreed by parties who were
verified as possessing the prerequisite juridical legitimacy and historical legal and ecclesiastical
authorities for such restoration to be legally effective.
The Courts letter recognized only the Apostolic, Magistral and other juridical and ecclesiastical
succession documented by the Holy See of Antioch as of the date of the letter. At the time of
consideration by the Court, that succession was documented by materials primarily connected
by a Protocol of Restoration of the Holy See of Antioch. That Protocol was signed between the
Independent Rite of Catholic Churches (IRCC) by Cardinal Khern Oliver as its principal, and an
effectively restored Templar Order of the original 12 th century Knights Templar validly
recognized by the Court, officially ratified on 09 September 2014, bearing the official legal seals of
those two entities.

On or around 06 October 2014, after a month of intensive work and intellectual property was
contributed by the original parties in reliance, the original Protocol was replaced without lawful
cause, notice nor legal termination. The new replacement Protocol was signed between a legally
recognized Kingdom as a Royal Patron of the Templar Order and the planned Holy See of
Antioch by Paul Roberts as Secretary, bearing the primary official seals of the Kingdom and the
planned Holy See itself as the two de facto parties to the Protocol. Cardinal Khern Oliver was
added as a third signature, as Chancellor of the Holy See of Antioch, indicating the Independent
Rite of Catholic Churches (IRCC) only as his personal affiliation.
That the original principal of IRCC as the primary party to the original Protocol was suddenly
reduced to a symbolic figurehead subordinate under a new party, is prima facie evidence of
unlawful duress. Even if the Protocol is interpreted as signed by the IRCC as the legal entity
(despite the seals indicating otherwise), it is apparent that the new Holy See of formerly
subordinate Clergy had usurped and de facto replaced the role of IRCC.
The Royal Institute of History and World Heritage confirms (as mentioned in the Courts letter)
that the Patriarchate of the Holy See of Antioch after the Great Schism of 1054 AD only survived
exclusively through the Cathars, who are extensively proven by the historical record to have
survived exclusively through the Order of the Temple of Solomon. All Apostolic and Magistral
succession from the original Holy See, as the only form of ecclesiastical succession, was thus
accessible to the planned restoration of the Holy See solely from that Templar Order.
By removing the Templar Order, the Holy See lost all claim to having lawful ecclesiastical
succession from the original historical institution. The Kingdom has no claim to the Cathars nor
post-schism Cathar Patriarchate as part of its heritage, and such claim would not be supported by
the historical record.
It should be noted, that the facts of the present matter establish that the Templar Order existed
as a restoration movement of university historians of cultural Templarism prior to restoration
and legalization of the Kingdom in the modern era. Accordingly, the Court takes judicial notice of
the fact that the Templar Order possesses its own substantive heritage and connections to other
surviving historical traditions such as the Cathars, independent of the Kingdom which would not
necessarily have any knowledge of those resources.
By discarding the original Protocol, usurping the planned restoration from both the IRCC and the
Templar Order, the new Holy See thereby ceased to be the same entity which was recognized
by the Court, ceased to be the lawful successor of the namesake historical institution, and thus
ceased to be as documented at the time when it was presented to the Court. These facts,
jointly and severally, thus automatically and necessarily rendered the Judiciary Recognition by the
Court null and void a priori at that moment.
Invalidation by Breaches of Canon Law
The Sovereign Court Division, having experts in Canon Law as an integral part of customary
international law, notes that the Old Catholic Movement, which the planned Holy See of Antioch
claims to represent, emerged from the Vatican of Rome in 1870 AD, and is thus generally
governed by the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law. This is even more relevant, as the new
planned Holy See renamed itself from of the Old Catholic Church to of the Old Roman Catholic
Church.
2

Therefore, for the purposes of international law governing historical institutions, the following key
Canons from the Roman Code of Canon Law apply to the Holy See of Antioch in the present
matter:
Under Canon 123, when an ecclesiastical institution is in abeyance (such as the Holy See of
Antioch after 1054 AD), the arrangements for its patrimonial goods and rights [may] devolve
upon the next higher juridical person, always with due regard for the wishes of the founders or
benefactors and for acquired rights.
Accordingly, if after suppression of the Templar Order in 1312 AD, the Holy See of Antioch is
considered to have devolved to the Kings of Jerusalem and thus passed to the Kingdom as Royal
Patron of the Templar Order, then its rights carried all limitations and conditions of the wishes
of the Templar Order as benefactors of the sole surviving Patriarchate from 1054 AD through
the Cathars exclusively through the Templar Order, and as holders of acquired rights from
Templar governance of the Principality of Antioch.
Under Canon 139, the fact that a person approaches some [higher] authority does not mean
that the executive power of [the lower] authority is suspended, whether that be ordinary or
delegated. (1) A lower authority, however, may interfere in cases referred to higher
authority for urgent reason of which the higher authority is to be notified immediately. (2)
The Templar Order possessed delegated authority from the Kingdom for the planned restoration
of the Holy See of Antioch, under its Constitution of 2008 as Amended 23 September 2013
(Articles 10.1(c), 11.1-11.4), which was additionally ratified and endorsed by legal signature and
seal of the Kingdom. The Templar Order also possesses ordinary authority independent from the
Kingdom as established by facts of the historical record.
When the new planned Holy See of Paul Burton and Paul Roberts circumvented both IRCC and
the Templar Order to replace the Protocol directly with the Kingdom as the higher authority, the
Templar Grand Master duly notified the Kingdom of the unlawful interference, but this was
eclipsed and suppressed by coercion through unlawful false defamation by the new Holy See.
(That the Kingdom was coerced by unlawful undue influence and deception in this manner is
evidenced by a Letter from the Lord Chancellor of the Kingdom addressed to all officers of the
Templar Order, dated 21 October 2014).
The Templar Order was deprived of its Canon Law right to interfere by its reserved authority.
Canon Law thus mandates that the Templar authority in the matter was never suspended. That
authority from the original Protocol therefore remains in full legal force and effect, serving as a
standing obstacle precluding any validity of the replacement Protocol, until such time as the
Templar Order voluntarily relinquishes its original Protocol with full knowledge and consent.
Under Canon 1391 1, it is prohibited to change or conceal a public ecclesiastical document
such as the original Protocol as ratified by the Independent Rite of Catholic Churches, and to use
an unauthorized altered one. Since the original Protocol was never terminated by consent of
the parties it remained in force, and the replacement Protocol was thus void by Canon Law.

Under Canon 1381 1, it is a punishable violation to usurp an ecclesiastical office, and Canon
1389 prohibits to abuse ecclesiastical power or an office including in furtherance of usurping an
ecclesiastical office or institution. Canon Law thus mandates that the Clergy from under the
authority of Cardinal Khern Oliver in the IRCC, by abusing their positions to usurp the IRCC and the
planned restoration of the Holy See as a whole, thereby invalidated any claim to ecclesiastical
authority as a Pontificate of the Holy See, which was thus null and void a priori.
Under Canon 15 1, Ignorance or error concerning invalidating or incapacitating laws does not
prevent the effect of those laws. Accordingly, the lack of knowledge of Canon Law by the new
Holy See does not prevent its invalidation by the documented violations of Canon Law.
Failure of Implementation of Restoration
The Protocol of Restoration used by the new Holy See defined the IRCC as the institutional
vehicle for unifying a network of Churches (Page 1, Preamble). The substance of the Protocol
was a planned procedure to reconstitute the historical institution of the Holy See with the
collective body of all of its Churches, and that the 66 diverse accumulated lines of Apostolic
Succession vested in the [IRCC] shall be passed on to the Holy See (Page 3, Reconstitution). As
the document was a Protocol, by definition, those benefits were not vested as contractual rights,
but merely were identified as steps which would have to be implemented to accomplish the
intended restoration.
The facts in the present matter establish that the Churches which contained all general
membership of IRCC are independent third parties, who by their own right and free will refused to
join the Holy See of Antioch under Paul Burton and Paul Roberts, in mass protest against what
they perceived as usurpation of IRCC and Cardinal Khern Oliver as its founding Episcopal
authority, who exclusively possesses the referenced 66 lines of Apostolic succession.
It should be noted, that the Court verified documentation of the membership who withdrew in
protest, establishing that it constitutes more than 40 Churches in over 36 countries with hundreds
of subsidiary Churches, having total membership exceeding 2 million, including over 157,000
Clergy ministering to the general membership. This gives weight and significance to the mass
protest, demonstrating that the adverse actions had a widespread negative impact on a large
group of affected parties. This direct membership also indirectly represents an estimated 15
million Old Catholics worldwide (Old Catholic Church, Saint Miriam Pro Cathedral, Pennsylvania,
citing statistics from 1990.)
In the key Protocol section Procedures for Restoration of the Holy See, it specifies that the IRCC
shall transfer its Churches by means of legal assignment and delegation (Page 4,
Procedures, Third). The facts establish that the new planned Holy See, upon its own
initiative, suppressed and interfered with Cardinal Khern Oliver, causing his resignation in protest,
as evidenced by his letter of Resignation & Revocation issued on 11 January 2015, before the
necessary acts could be implemented.
The new Holy See by its own actions thereby prevented the necessary steps from being
completed. As a direct result, no such official act of transfer by the required legal assignment
and delegation was ever executed, and no canonical vesting of the Apostolic lines was achieved.

The Protocol of Restoration was never implemented, and its procedures and steps for
restoration were never completed. All membership was lost as alienated by the planned Holy
See, and the Protocol became impossible to implement by frustration of its purpose and loss of its
subject matter. Therefore, as a legal fact, the planned restoration never occurred, and can no
longer occur as agreed, and the ecclesiastical institution of the Holy See of Antioch was never
restored. Accordingly, for all practical purposes, the planned Holy See as an ecclesiastical
institution, both legally and canonically, does not exist.
Limitations & Legal Effect of Letters Patent
The Letters Patent from the Kingdom, apparently back-dated to 09 September 2014, which was
not known to the Court at that time, was issued only to the body known as The Holy See of
Antioch at that time. That evidences that it was originally issued in reliance upon the same
documents which the Court had relied upon. It also evidences that the Royal grant was in fact
issued to the IRCC headed by Cardinal Khern Oliver, and not to the new entity as usurped by the
planned Holy See headed by Paul Burton and Paul Roberts.
The Letters Patent (as amended) appears to grant the full right power and authority to exercise
ecclesiastical Canon Law as the Holy See. However, as a matter of law, a Royal House does not
possess pontifical ecclesiastical authority, which historically was always strictly separate from
Royal authority. It is a fundamental universal doctrine of law that no entity can grant more,
greater or different rights than those which it possesses.
There is an indirect quasi-precedent that King Henry VIII of England separated the Church of
England from the Roman Catholic Church ca. 1534 AD, declaring royal supremacy over the
resulting Church within his territorial jurisdiction. The King was excommunicated for that by the
Vatican in 1533 AD (J.J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, 2nd Ed., Yale University Press (1997), p.361), proving
that royal authority over ecclesiastical matters is wholly rejected and excluded from Catholicism.
Such precedent thus cannot apply to the Holy See of Antioch which claims to be Old Catholic.
Furthermore, the resulting Anglican Church was separated from a pre-existing Church, based on
territoriality, and was not created in a void based solely upon Royal Fons Honourum.
The Letters Patent also appears to grant sovereignty as a Nation State By Royal prerogative as
the Royal Protector. However, as a matter of law, a Royal House does not possess juridical
authority to create Nation State status by its own volition alone, in the absence of many other
factors and criteria under historical and customary international law which must also be fulfilled.
It is noteworthy that an earlier version of the Letters Patent (closer to the official date) was
witnessed by participants at the time, which merely recognized the Holy See, without
purporting to grant sweeping canonical ecclesiastical authorities and international law status
beyond the scope of Royal Fons Honourum. This supports the conclusion that the Kingdom was
coerced or deceived by unlawful interference by the new Holy See.
The facts that the Letters Patent was issued based upon documentation which suddenly changed,
and was understood in context to be for the benefit of named parties of the original Protocol who
were suddenly changed, is prima facie evidence of unlawful interference by the new Holy See.

The multiple defects in the replacement Protocol and the Letters Patent, apparently resulting
from haste, combined with the visibly evident misappropriation of the intellectual property of the
original Protocol and a Constitution developed by the Templar Order, is prima facie evidence of
usurpation by deception, duress and coercion by the new Holy See.
The only remaining lawful effect of the Letters Patent is that the Kingdom would be the Royal
Protector of the Holy See, thereby making it a Protectorate subsidiary to the Kingdom.
However, the Holy See does not possess any external independent ecclesiastical authority of a
Patriarchate beyond the limitations of Royal Protection, nor indications of any of the multiple
factors required to be a Nation State under customary international law. As a result, the
planned Holy See cannot lawfully represent itself as a Nation State in its present status.
Therefore, if it could maintain the status of a Royal Protectorate, the institution could only
properly describe its juridical status as being a sovereign subject of international law, solely by
the legitimate Royal authority of the Kingdom. However, such claim could only be made unless
and until such time as the Kingdom would exercise its royal prerogative to revoke and terminate
its Letters Patent.
Compelling evidence indicates that the Kingdom did in fact revoke and terminate its Royal
Protection of the usurped Holy See of Antioch:
On 23 December 2014 the Sovereign of the Royal House issued brief written statements to the
Templar Order: Please inform the Holy See that I want nothing to do with them. Everything is
in your hands now. Only 11 days later on 03 January 2015, manifestly in reaction to revocation
of its Letters Patent, the Holy See posted on its Facebook page (names redacted): We were
here before [King] and [Royal Chancellor] And now we have an aim in life. On 24 February 2015,
when asked whether the Holy See Letters Patent was terminated, the Sovereign confirmed in
writing: I believe that has been done I thought [Royal Chancellor] sent them such a letter.
Summary of Findings of Fact & Conclusion
By circumventing the Templar Order, the new Holy See of Paul Burton and Paul Roberts lost its
only juridical connection to succession from the original historical institution of the Holy See of
Antioch;
By usurping the Independent Rite of Catholic Churches and Cardinal Khern Oliver who had
ordained them, it invalidated its ecclesiastical authority by fundamental breaches of Canon Law,
and lost any pontifical status;
By deceiving and coercing the Kingdom, it lost its Royal Protection and any claim to sovereignty or
statehood;
By all of that misconduct of unlawful interference, it also alienated all of the independent
Churches in the collective, losing the entire membership for the planned restoration of the
Church, consisting of over 2 million members.
Therefore, as established by all available evidence, the Court cannot recognize any lawful basis for
the name of the usurped entity to contain the word Antioch or the phrase Holy See, nor for it
to claim any pontifical authority, nor to style itself as having any aspect of statehood.
6

As a result of its own wrongful actions, the current claimed Holy See of Antioch has thereby
forced the Court to revoke and annul the Judiciary Recognition letter of 09 September 2014 which
was issued to different legitimate intended beneficiaries.
Legal Notices to Affected Parties
The present Act is not a Judgment, and does not compel parties to the subject matter to take any
particular action. This Act does constitute a Judiciary Declaration establishing certain legal facts,
of which Courts of Law may take judicial notice, and law enforcement authorities may rely upon
as official investigative findings of fact.
This Act also serves to put the parties involved on legal notice that they may incur liabilities to
third parties for any misrepresentations which they might make in contradiction of the
established legal facts as presented herein.
This document is not intended as a public statement, but rather is issued privately to the parties
involved, and to third parties who are directly affected. However, the Court and all affected
parties have a protected right to disclose or display this Act as may be reasonably necessary and
appropriate to uphold their lawful rights and interests.
The correction or resolution of any apparent legal defects in documents or transactions indicated
in this document is a matter which the Court defers to the parties involved.
Any form of apparent retaliation against the Court, directly or through the independent host
NGO institution, or any Officer of the Court, including investigative or enforcement lay judges
whose status is indicated in a public profile online, or through any third parties associated with
either the Court or the present subject matter, whether directly or indirectly, constitutes a
punishable criminal violation of international law, which shall be prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law. (UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Articles 1, 2, 4, 16,
17; UN Basic Principles on the Right to a Remedy for Violations, Preamble: Paragraph 8.)
Based upon official Judiciary legal and factual investigation, this Court of Law hereby issues the
present document, making its contents binding and enforceable by force of international law.
Endorsed and Ratified by Official Seal
Chancellor of Chamber of Instruction Judges
Sovereign Court Division
Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ)
26 February 2015

You might also like