Court Ruling Act of Revocation 'Holy See of Antioch' Paul Joseph Burton Paul Vincent Roberts

ACT OF REVOCATION & ANNULMENT OF JUDICIARY RECOGNITIONIn 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 Court’s 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 Court’s 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. 1 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 Court’s 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. 3 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. 4 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”. 5 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 7