The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty | home
The Third Defamation Web Page of the Self-Styled Abbey-Principality of San Luigi
The Third Defamation Web Page of the Self-Styled Abbey-Principality of San Luigi
Since, the Abbey has continued and maintained their public attack from January 1, 2015, legally we have right to defend outselves, set the record straight, and expose their dishonesty.
We have invited them over and over again that if they would take down their offensive web pages, we would do likewise. However, they show no intent, desire or inclination to do what is right and what is intelligent, because their articles reveal their duplicity and deceitfulness, which is misconduct, or un-Christian like behavior, for a so-called Christian Abbey. It is behavior for which they should be ashamed. Since they are not "peace-makers," or are unwilling to change, it speaks volumes loud and clear that something is seriously wrong. That is, they are not Christian, or children of light, but are something else -- something much darker. But because they profess to be a Christian Abbey, they can be rightfully labeled as a hypocritical organization acting in opposition to Christian teachings.
Their chief aim, besides trying to discredit and confuse the issue, is to draw away attention from a serious flaw in their claim.
Their attacks are merely to sidetrack or divert one's attention away from the fact that their claims of sovereignty, of being a legitimate fons honorum, or principality, etc. are sheer non-sense as their history, their arguments and reasonings cannot hold water. They are not sensible chiefly because their claim is in direct violation of the laws that govern who does and who does not hold sovereignty or the right to rule in international law. (See the article: "The Claim of Sovereignty of the Self-styled Abbey-Principality of San Luigi")
The third offensive web page to be addressed can be seen by clicking on the following words -- "third 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.
They originally wrote:
. . . We offered [name redacted] and [name redacted] terms by which the matter could be brought to a conclusion. These were:
- A complete and unequivocal retraction and apology from [name redacted] and [name redacted] for their past comments and actions against us;
- A legally binding commitment from [names redacted] and any past or future organization in which they have a controlling interest to refrain from any such actions in the future.
The above was changed to "In this response [etc.]. . ." to avoid the lie that they actually offered us anything. The truth is, they have never manifested the common decency of communicating with us and offer us anything in spite of our invitations for them to do so. It is a sad reflection on their lack of nobility, chivalric or Christian ideals, which they profess, that they merely attack rather than work out something constructive or attempt to solve things.
Problems with the above offer:
(1) Note that their terms are all one-sided.
(2) As mentioned, they never offered these lopsided or skewed terms to us by mail or email. Whereas, we have offered them an equitable, fair and balanced solution on a number of occasions.
(3) The article we wrote on them was sent privately to the members of our society and to a royal house, which we were contractually obligated to warn about false claims. We were private about it. The Abbey, on the other hand, publically attacked us and used personal names, which we never did. In fact, we never attacked them publically, but responded to them to set the record straight, after months of patiently waiting for them to be reasonable and responsible as per our invitations.
Note: If they had merely sent these insulting and dishonest articles privately to their own members, instead of publishing them on the internet, we would not have published our articles. In fact, if they remove them, we will remove ours.
(4) Because of their public attacks, rather than private communications, they have been the major offenders in this situation, not us. If an apology is needed, they need to apologize to us.
(5) As to a legal binding agreement. Such is unnecessary as we keep our promises. They can, as requested, take down their web pages, we would then take down ours, and if they re-offend, we would merely open ours back up. They could do the same. It is as simple as that.
We invite them to solve the problem in a way that is in harmony with Christian values and ideals, that which they should cherish, honor and respect, and not be offenders by personal attacks using falsehood to boot!
As a side, the Son of God said, ". . . Offences [will] come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" (Matthew 18:7) You'd think this might mean something to the so-called Abbot, but apparently not.
We regret that the Abbey has refused all our invitations to discuss things and do something reasonable about this situation. They somehow think it is okay to indulge in dishonest defamation, slander and deceitful slurs. Why they do this is a complete mystery unless they are vengeful judgmental people who do not care about truth or honesty or what is right. It is a sad state of affair. That is, instead of defending themselves and sticking to the core issues about their claims, they attack people instead of sticking to principles.
Fourth paragraph: This paragraph is an example of a personal attack, by name, using innuendo or insinuations in the wrongful attempt to discredit. They also complain of ". . . pious lectures on what he understands to be “Christian principles.”
Do they think that stretching the truth, personal public attacks, avoiding the real issues, making false assumptions, showing bias and prejudice, offering slander and libel, making snide remarks are okay for a Christian organization, or is it hypocrisy to profess Christian values and do the very opposite?
They also complain that it is "conceit" on our part to want to "persuade [them] to abandon those elements of our organization that [they] so objects to." Is it conceit to ask that they stop their publically attack, then, as promised, we would no longer have to defend ourselves by revealing more and more of their faulty logic and duplicity?
Fifth paragraph: The Abbey instead of working things out merely complain:
(2) That we ". . . placed or supported the placing of inaccurate and malicious material on Wikipedia that defames us." What they are talking about is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilatte_Orders. We were not aware of this article till a few months ago. It is wrong to blame people for things based only on assumptions, especially inaccurate guesses. It is like gossip -- a totally un-Christian and un-scholarly way of operating. And then publishing it on the internet. Slander is wrong and it is a criminal offense.
(3) They complain that we ". . . attempted to tortiously interfere with our treaty arrangements with our Royal Patron," and ". . . have attacked a member of our organization for his association with us." If we are right, this "member of [their] organization" can vouch for us that we had a contractual agreement to protect the particular Royal House from organizations that made, such as, the Abbey, which makes false claims. He can also testify that we did not attack him, but expressed great disappointment in him for failing to own up to the fact that he allowed and promoted their involvement in phony organizations.
(4) The Abbey complained that we ". . . contacted [the Abbey] through unsolicited email and mail communications, and in their course, made ongoing threats and accusations against us." These contacts were an appeal and an invitation to work out a positive-constructive solution. Finally, after months of waiting for a reply, we promised them we would defend ourselves and publish our original private article showing they have no right to call themselves a principality or government-in-exile as their claim was utterly impossible and phony. (Again see: "The Claim of Sovereignty of the Self-styled Abbey-Principality of San Luigi") We did not threaten them, we promised them we would defend ourselves.
(5) They accuse us of a lack of "good faith," but they are the ones who would not try to work things out, or attempt to right any wrongs. They are the ones who have and have continued to exhibit bad faith.
(6) They say, "it is clear beyond any ambiguity what these men stand for. . . ." We stand for fixing the problem and telling the truth.
(7) Then they end this paragraph with the statement, "We have endured their behaviour for over two years now, and we have had our fill of it." If this was so, we were oblivious to it. We were not attacking them. We merely sent out a private newsletter and were fulfilling the provisions of our contract with the African Royal House.
And, think about it, why did they not contact us, if they were so disturbed about it? It is because, they know that their claim is not only questionable, it is indefensible. They really don't have a leg to stand on, so they attack, which is what losers do when they have no valid argument. This whole public attack on their part is a distraction from the truth that they have no legitimate claim to be legitimate, especially when one of the founder admitted that it was a lie.
Sixth paragraph: The Abbey made the statement that "we have simply defended our own sovereign position. . . ." We wish they would do that instead of attacking us and avoiding the real issues about their counterfeit claims wherein they are impersonating what is real, authentic and genuine. They did much more than "simply defend" themselves. They attack us personally and twisted things rather than sticking to the facts.
They state, ". . . it may now be slowly dawning on them that we take our nobiliary and chivalric responsibilities extremely seriously. . . ." We wish they did. We wish they were noble and filled with chivalric virtues instead of stretching the truth, making personal public attacks, avoiding the real issues, making false assumptions, indulging in the blame game, manifesting bias and prejudice, offering slander and libel, making snide remarks. None of these things are in harmony with the idea of taking their "nobiliary and chivalric responsibilities extremely seriously."
Seventh paragraph: Here the Abbey cuts down international law. Yet they have written an article saying that their claim to legal, non-territorial sovereignty is based or founded on international law. (See "The Abbey Principality in international law:" http://san-luigi.org/history/the-abbey-principality-in-international-law) If what they propose in this paragraph is true, then they have no rightful claim at all -- no legal foundation to support their claim.
The truth is that most international law is quite clear especially about sovereignty, which is the highest and most important law of all -- internationally.
Eighth paragraph: This paragraph provides more attacks on international law. They obviously do not understand it. The "Law of Nations" is nothing more or less than the "Principles of the Law of Nature applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns." (Emerich de Vattel, full title of his book The Law of Nations) That is, it is composed of the eternal laws of justice. However, there is the "necessary," or most binding and essential parts of the law of all nations, and there is the "temporary," changing, or "voluntary law of nations." (Hugo Grotius, The Law of Nations, "Preliminaries," no. 7-13, 21) ". . . One part of international law [is] stable and eternally the same . . . another part as shifting and changeable with the changing manners, fashions, creeds, and customs [of man]. . . ." (Sheldon Amos, The Science of Law, 1874, p. 341) Sovereignty law is fixed, permanent and perpetual. Dr. Kerr's book, advertised below, explains this in great detail. Sovereignty law makes it clear that the Abbey's claim to hold valid sovereignty is utterly false. Dr. Kerr is an international lawyer and professor of law, and is presently working on an important legal strategly for the Imperial and Royal House of Habsburgs.
Ninth paragraph: This paragragh is obviously another personal attack and, of course, another distraction from the fact that they have no real defense for their unrealistic regal claims.
They exaggerate about our writings being "full of elementary spelling and grammatical errors." This is just another stretch. However, there probably are some spelling and grammatical errors on our website. It is also true that most books that have been professionally edited have such mistakes in them.
Then the disgraceful Abbey writer declares that our writings are "crudely expressed," etc. Yet we have received a lot of praise, respect, honor and high compliments from scholars and professionals all over the world. Some who have joined and become members. They do not seem to care about little mistakes, but recognize truth when they see it. The Abbey, on the other hand, are merely grasping at straws to try to throw dirt on us, instead of dealing with the real issues.
Tenth paragraph: Of all the commissions and associations that identify authentic noble, chivalric and royal claims on the earth, none have backed up the Abbey's claims as being rightful mainly because they are in violation of not just common sense, but the highest of international law. (See: "The Claim of Sovereignty of the Self-styled Abbey-Principality of San Luigi") Their complaints in this paragraph about commissions are merely because none of them consider them as legitimate. The truth of the matter is that royalty and sovereignty are well-established principles in the law and have been from ancient times. They can be seen in the Old Testament and existed before the kingdom of Israel ever existed. That is, they are timeless and universal. None of it is based on theory, but, contrary to their statement, but its foundation on well-known legal realities, both ancient and modern.
Eleventh and Twelveth paragraphs: The anonymous author of this derogatory article states that we believe ". . . that the Abbey-Principality was a usurper in the act of its establishment in the Fezzan in 1883, and that usurpation cannot produce sovereignty." This is a false statement. But then again, what does the Abbey care about truth? All they seem to care about is using any excuse they can use to make us look bad even if it is a lie. But lying, or gross inaccuracies, based on wrongful assumptions end up as lies perpetrated as libelous slander. Not a very Christian thing to do.
Usurpation can create sovereignty through prescriptive law.
In speaking of the usurpers of a throne, writers on the Laws of Nations . . . Grotius, Puffendorf, Suarez and Navare, [contend] that une possession seculaire une possession is sufficient to remove the blot [of usurpation or an unjust conquest and take over], because, in the lapse of one hundred years [heals the wrong]. . . This is the general principle of prescription, in public matters. . . . (William Walton, A reply to the "Exposé des droits de sa majesté très fidèle, Donna Maria II, 1830, pp. 148-149) (emphasis added)
Immemorial prescription has always taken about 100 years to be final and complete. For an example from the ancient kingdom of Judah:
Six Years [of rule for Queen Athaliah, who was a usurper in the ancient Kingdom of Judah] were not long enough for a Prescription, which . . . must be a hundred Years. . . . A long Prescription gives a [supreme] Right; that is, such a Right as makes Obedience due to Princes . . . settled. . . . [in terms of] legal title. . . . (Sir Thomas Egerton, The Speech of the Lord Chancelor: Sir Thomas Egerton, 1978, p. 23.) (emphasis added)
That is, ". . . one hundred years prescription . . . justified an heir in retaining a crown which had been [originally] unjustly seized." (John Lynch, Cambrensis Eversus, vol. 3, part 1, Matthew Kelly, ed., 1851, p. 11.) (emphasis added) However, “This possession must not be contested or challenged by the original possessor.” (Thomas W. Donavan, “Suriname Guyana Maritime and Territorial Disputes: A Legal and Historical Analysis,” CARICOM Maritime Space: Disputes and Resolution: Disputes and Resolution, Mohamed Shahabuddeen, ed., 2007, p. 237) “Prescription is defined as ‘legitimization of a doubtful title by the passage of time and the presumed acquiescence of the former sovereign.’” (Thomas W. Donavan, “Suriname Guyana Maritime and Territorial Disputes: A Legal and Historical Analysis,” CARICOM Maritime Space: Disputes and Resolution: Disputes and Resolution, Mohamed Shahabuddeen, ed., 2007, p. 237 and Malcolm M. Shaw, International Law, 1997, pp. 343-344)
Without this acquiescence, negligence or abandonment on the part of the original sovereign, there is no prescription or transfer of the de jure or legal right to rule.
The Abbey, according to their claim, only had sovereignty for just a little over one year, not the required one hundred years of continuous rule. Their claim is an impossibility based on this one binding modern and ancient law alone. (For more on this, see the article: "DEPOSED SOVEREIGNTY AND ROYALTY: How to Preserve it and How it can be Lost" at http://www.nobility-royalty.com/the_sovereign_rights_of_deposed_kings__monarchs_and_sovereign_princes.htm and/or order Dr. Kerr's book, The Entitlement to Rule: Legal, Non-Territorial Sovereignty in International Law -- see the ad below)
The rest of these two paragraphs give examples of usupation obtaining de facto sovereignty, which is meaningless, because occupying, conquering or usurping another nation's sovereigny does not confer true, legal sovereignty upon them until there has been one hundred years of undisputed rule. Then and only then does the usurper actually obtain both de jure and de facto sovereignty.
In the eleventh paragraph, they state, "This [their false accusation] demonstrates his ignorance at its most galling." This statement is not only gramatically incorrect, it is factually incorrect as well. Having access to a well-known international lawyer, who we communicate with quite often, enables us to be up-to-date and historically accurate in this important area of expertise. This next paragraph is quite revealing.
Thirteenth paragraph: They start out by saying that our ". . . pleading of this case [that usurpation cannot produce sovereignty] does little but reveal the weakness of his position." But actually it reveals that they did not read our article accurately, or are lying, because we never said "that usurpation cannot produce sovereignty." This statement also reveals their ignorance of international law in general.
Next they make the statement, that ". . . there is no evidence of any effective or settled government in the Fezzan as of 1883 that could have been usurped, and [that we] can only produce vague murmurs of Arab tribal structures that he argues were extant a century before that. . . ." Do they produce any substantiation for this assertion? Of course, not. They make statements based only on vague assumptions, without collaboration, and then expect you to believe them when they present no proof, confirmation or validation. In the article "The Claim of Sovereignty of the Self-styled Abbey-Principality of San Luigi" we described the well-known fact of a loosely organized valid kingdom that existed there.
But even more powerfully and conclusive, the International Court of Justice declared in 1976 that, “. . . The peoples of Western Sahara at the time of its colonization  gave rise to certain ties of a legal character. . . .” They “. . . had grazing pastures, cultivated lands, and wells or water-holes . . . burial grounds . . . regulated by customs.” In other words, they were organized societies. Therefore, the Court concluded that the “. . . nomadic peoples living as 'organized societies' were not to be considered terra nullius [that is, vacant and therefore] open to acquisition by occupation.” (Stephen C. McCaffrey, Dinah Shelton and John Cerone, Public International Law: Cases, Problems, and Texts, 2010, no. 4.2.1.) This investigative report was commissioned by the United Nations.
Instead of there being "no evidence of any effective or settled governemnt in the Fezzan as of 1883 that could have been usurped. . . ," there is the opposite. The International Court of Justice determined the real truth of the situation.
Again, the Abbey is exposed for making false claims.
Fourteenth paragraph: The defamation author in this paragraph writes, that recognition, ". . . negates any debate over our origins." Really? Even if it is fake. The truth is, ". . . Sovereignty is neither created by recognition nor destroyed by nonrecognition.” (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, edition 15, part 3, vol 17, 1981, p. 312) International law denies that diplomatic or political recognition confers sovereignty. Common sense tell you the same thing. Recognition simply cannot make something false into something true or real.
Fifteenth and Sixteenth paragraphs: Here the Abbey again makes the mistake of thinking that recognition can change a falsehood into something true. To be recognized by HM the King of Bunyoro-Kitara is not what makes things right or wrong. Rather an authentic claim that can be proven by solid evidence that it is authentic and legal makes a claim valid and legitimate. Fantasy and fabrication have no place, but one of dishonor and shame for those who impersonate what is real. Vattel, one of the founders of international law, reminds us that such a person would have to:
. . . prove his right; for he ought to show a good foundation for demanding a thing which he does not possess [being deposed]. He must have a title [the evidence, showing that he had the rights in the first place and maintained them according to prescriptive law, otherwise the] . . . people are not obliged to respect that title any farther than he shows its validity. (Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 2, chapter 18, no. 337)
If the proof is inadequate, contradictory, or is in violation of ancient and modern sovereignty law, it is nothing more than fantasy, or worse, an act of fraud. Lack of solid proof means no sovereignty or royalty exists. An unsubstaniated claim is no better than make-believe, because it has no legal foundation or lawful basis in law. It is empty of any legal validity.
Seventeenth and eighteenth paragraphs: Again, the anonymous Abbey writer extols recognition, which is irrelevant to their claims. A claim must be in harmony with sovereignty law to be legally and lawfully valid.
Nineteenth paragraph: The Abbey asserts that we ". . . can only make [our] case against [them] through a process of wilful neglect and the contradiction of [our] own previous statements and associations." The truth: we make our case that they do not hold non-territorial sovereignty via their own historical account, ancient and modern international law, and the findings of the International Court of Justice about the sovereign rights of the people of Western Sahara during 1884 or colonial times, which contradicts their claim of terra nullus, or that the territory was unclaimed land as far as sovereignty goes. The Court stated that no one, but the people of the land, held any rightful or legal sovereignty over this vast territory, which of course, included the Abbey. This is a direct and profound refutation of their claim under the authority of the International Court of Justice.
Twentieth paragraph: Here is a very bazaar statement. The Abbey showing ignorance of the rights of sovereignty declare that ". . . if a sovereign recognizes a claim, whatever the antecedence of that claim, such a claim has ceased to be 'false' by virtue of the act of its sovereign recognition." Does a sovereign have the legal right to make the world flat, make the Sun revolve around the earth or give Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck sovereignty? Not only does this statement defy common sense and good reason, but it is utter nonsense, which any reasonable person can see very plainly.
Twenty-first paragraph: Here the Abbey makes the erroneous claim that ". . . during June 2010 [we] were prevailing upon His Majesty [the African Royal House] to sell Western-style titles of nobility with themselves as middlemen." Is this claim substantiated, or is it an unsupported assertion like so many others they have made? Most all of the statements of the Abbey provide no documentation or verifiable evidence. They can't, because there isn't any. This is a falsehood like so many other statements they have made. Slander, like this, is a crime whether they are ever prosecuted for it or not.
They also make the statement that, "Our view is that ending any contact with these people has been a most wise decision for His Majesty." We terminated our contract with them, not the other way around. So one wonders, does making false statements bother the Abbey writer? Apparently not.
Twenty-second paragraph: They state: ". . . the power of the sovereign is such that even error can be codified in law if the sovereign decrees it." They then give some examples, but fail to recognize that in law, a monarch cannot create a law for other countries or entities outside of his authority. He is restricted to his own jurisdiction. He or she can legally establish mistakes in his or her own land, dominion or boundaries, but does not have authority or right to change anything in another nation's territorial possession. That is, a monarch in say the Congo cannot change the legal situation for a claimant in Western Asia or in the Americas, nor can he or she have the rightful and lawful power to change a falsehood into a legal right outside of his or her own restricted jurisdiction.
In other words, they make the misleading implication that if any sovereign on earth declares them to be rightful, that this makes their claim authentic, even if it is bogus. The irrationality of this illogical assertion is highly apparent and needs no further comment.
Twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth paragraphs: The Abbey continues to make inaccurate statements in these paragraphs. They say, ". . . that the ownership of the [copyrighted] material in question was until very recently attributed to a Nevada corporation which has as of several months ago been dissolved." By this, they imply that we do not own the copyright, but if they bothered to check it out, we do. The corporation never own it.
They go on to state that they can lawfully use copyrighted material to "criticize," but the law also states any person who knowingly misrepresents that material or activity is in breach of the law and is therefore liable for misrepresenting it.
The Abbey in these articles have consistently misrepresented us and some of the material has not even been on the internet for years. By declaring it to be the truth is a distortion of reality and a flagrant misrepresentation or violation of the law. They profess to be a Christian organization, but are offenders. In other words, they are supposed to let their ". . . light so shine before men, that they may see [their] good works, and glorify [our] Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16) It is not a good work to willfully misrepresent or attack others. However, this appears to mean little or nothing to them. One of the great commandments of the law of God is "Thou shalt not bear false witness." They are guilty of this kind of activity. You would think that a Christian Abbey would behave on a higher level. But they are obviously not loyal to the Christian values they profess.
Twenty-ninth paragraph: They state, "There is little more guaranteed to engender our contempt than a man who issues fake legal threats." After inviting them to solve the problem, only to have them escalate things or add wood to the fire by adding another offensive web page, we told them that we would make complaints, which we did. There is nothing contemptible about complaining about personal attacks to their hosting company. This was not a legal threat merely a complaint. As usual, they misrepresent what happened, which is highly contemptible on their part.
Thirtieth paragraph: The Abbey defamation writer here complains that their public attack on us is justified because of a private article we wrote on their claim long ago. He then implies we have further attacked them. Never at any time did they contact us about this and question us. They merely assumed things, but assumptions are not facts, they are mere opinions. But to publish them publically before the world is a crime -- the crime that is called slander or libel. And as such, there is no defense against twisting things. They are the offenders.
To top it off, they even accuse us of ". . . squeal[ing] like little girls." Really? This is an example of "name calling" -- a juvenile, not a noble or scholarly way of acting. It reflects badly on them along with their other defamatory misrepresentations.
In addition, the Abbey declares, ". . . we are more than capable of responding robustly to him and defending ourselves." That is what we wish they would do, not by attacking, but sticking to the core issues and principles -- not name calling or innuendo.
They say, ". . . we [the Abbey are not] overly troubled by his threat to publish further. . . ." Good, but it makes a whole lot more sense for them to be "peace-makers" and avoid all the bad press and negative exposure they will get, because of their lack of integrity. These articles on them have been getting over 300 hits per day according to Webalizer, which monitors our pages.
Taking up our offer of mutually taking down our web pages is an easy, fair and equitable solution.
But if they like this kind of thing, they can certainly continue. They say, "Our people are quite capable of reading both sides and making up their own mind as to who to believe." If this is true, we challenge them to put the email addresses of our web pages onto each of their articles -- like we have done. We do this because the truth practically speaks for itself. Readers will then get a more balanced view of what is really happening and have easy access to both sides, not one side.
Thirty-first paragraph: The derogatory author now proceeds to be a know-it-all. The Abbey author actually wrote, "He has convinced himself that he is the warrior for truth and justice and that anyone who opposes him is thereby 'self-deceived,' fraudulent or otherwise on the side of evil." Here he is saying we are delusional. Is he a psychiatrist? People who have weak or shaky arguments, or who lack confidence in themselves or their subject, often resort to name-calling or similar exaggerations in their attacks.
Thirty-second or last paragraph: Their conclusion is we "seem to have lost. . . . [because] we [meaning the Abbey] have already struck far more effectively at them than they could ever do at us." Therefore, "Perhaps it is time . . . [to] reconsidered our offer of terms?"
First of all, if they think they are winning by offering gross inaccuracies and misrepresentations, wherein they stretch the truth into a lie, apply personal public attacks, and use name calling, play the blame game, avoiding the real issues, making false assumptions and accusations, making things up, showing bias and unreasonable logic, offering libel and slander, and make snide remarks, then they have really lost it. None of these things are okay for a Christian organization. Nor are they okay for an honest honorable man of integrity. They would be out of character for either. This kind of behavior is not Christian, not noble, not chivalric, not honorable, not anything good.
In conclusion, their articles on us have been deceitful, illogical, and not one of their complaints have been validated or confirmed as accurate or truthful, except in minor inconsequential areas of little importance. That is, they have not presented anything significant or substantial. Instead of focusing on objective principles, core issues or concerns and defended their claim, they have lowered themselves into personally attacking us, which is revolting.
We invite them to a better way, but so far, they have not listened. Hence, we have had to take the time to address each of their complaints and show them to be flawed, inaccurate and dishonest.
As any lawyer knows, being attacked publically creates a situation where one can legally and publically defend oneself and provide to the best of one's ability the real truth. This we have done.
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:
© Copyright 2005/2009 -- International Commission on Nobility and Royalty. All Rights Reserved.