1

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 rightsand interests of parties to a case, but rather constitutes an exercise of the Court’s right tounilaterally declare its own position regarding a Letter of Recognition which it had issued to anintended beneficiary. Accordingly, there is no requirement of due process, as the Act is theequivalent 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 withuniversal jurisdiction over all matters involving international law, under “UN Declaration ofHuman Rights” (Articles 10, 28), “UN Remedy for Human Rights” (Articles 3(c), 5, 12, 14), “UNRight to Protect Human Rights” (Articles 1, 3, 5, 9.1-9.2), “UN Justice for Abuse of Power” (Articles5, 7), and “UN Independence of Judiciary” (Articles 3, 9.4), operating as a United Nations NGOinstitution having statutory authority of international law to officially perform judiciary functionsworldwide.

The entity presently representing itself as the “Holy See of Antioch”, and its principals PaulJoseph 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 InternationalJustice, issued for the Holy See of Antioch on 09 September 2014, is hereby revoked byannulment as void, on the following legal grounds presented throughout this Act, on the basisof 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 thehistorical institution of the Holy See of Antioch, as arranged and agreed by parties who wereverified as possessing the prerequisite juridical legitimacy and historical legal and ecclesiasticalauthorities for such restoration to be legally effective.

The Court’s letter recognized only the “Apostolic, Magistral… and other juridical and ecclesiasticalsuccession documented by the Holy See of Antioch” as of the date of the letter. At the time ofconsideration by the Court, that succession was “documented” by materials primarily connectedby a “Protocol of Restoration of the Holy See of Antioch”. That Protocol was signed between theIndependent Rite of Catholic Churches (IRCC) by Cardinal Khern Oliver as its principal, and aneffectively restored Templar Order of the original 12th century “Knights Templar” validlyrecognized by the Court, officially ratified on 09 September 2014, bearing the official legal seals ofthose two entities.

2

On or around 06 October 2014, after a month of intensive work and intellectual property wascontributed by the original parties in reliance, the original Protocol was replaced without lawfulcause, notice nor legal termination. The new replacement Protocol was signed between a legallyrecognized Kingdom as a Royal Patron of the Templar Order and the planned “Holy See ofAntioch” by Paul Roberts as Secretary, bearing the primary official seals of the Kingdom and theplanned “Holy See” itself as the two de facto parties to the Protocol. Cardinal Khern Oliver wasadded as a third signature, as “Chancellor of the Holy See of Antioch”, indicating the IndependentRite of Catholic Churches (IRCC) only as his personal affiliation.

That the original principal of IRCC as the primary party to the original Protocol was suddenlyreduced to a symbolic figurehead subordinate under a new party, is prima facie evidence ofunlawful 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 formerlysubordinate 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 survivedexclusively through the Cathars, who are extensively proven by the historical record to havesurvived 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 thusaccessible 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 “ecclesiasticalsuccession” from the original historical institution. The Kingdom has no claim to the Cathars norpost-schism Cathar Patriarchate as part of its heritage, and such claim would not be supported bythe historical record.

It should be noted, that the facts of the present matter establish that the Templar Order existedas a restoration movement of university historians of “cultural Templarism” prior to restorationand legalization of the Kingdom in the modern era. Accordingly, the Court takes judicial notice ofthe fact that the Templar Order possesses its own substantive heritage and connections to othersurviving historical traditions such as the Cathars, independent of the Kingdom which would notnecessarily have any knowledge of those resources.

By discarding the original Protocol, usurping the planned restoration from both the IRCC and theTemplar Order, the new “Holy See” thereby ceased to be the same entity which was recognizedby the Court, ceased to be the lawful successor of the namesake historical institution, and thusceased 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 theCourt 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 customaryinternational law, notes that the Old Catholic Movement, which the planned Holy See of Antiochclaims to represent, emerged from the Vatican of Rome in 1870 AD, and is thus generallygoverned by the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law. This is even more relevant, as the newplanned Holy See renamed itself from “of the Old Catholic Church” to “of the Old Roman CatholicChurch”.

3

Therefore, for the purposes of international law governing historical institutions, the following keyCanons from the Roman Code of Canon Law apply to the Holy See of Antioch in the presentmatter:

Under Canon 123, when an ecclesiastical institution is in abeyance (such as the Holy See ofAntioch after 1054 AD), “the arrangements for its patrimonial goods and rights… [may] devolveupon the next higher juridical person, always with due regard for the wishes of the founders orbenefactors and for acquired rights.”

Accordingly, if after suppression of the Templar Order in 1312 AD, the Holy See of Antioch isconsidered to have “devolved” to the Kings of Jerusalem and thus passed to the Kingdom as RoyalPatron 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 throughthe Cathars exclusively through the Templar Order, and as holders of “acquired rights” fromTemplar governance of the Principality of Antioch.

Under Canon 139, “the fact that a person approaches some [higher] authority… does not meanthat the executive power of [the lower] authority is suspended, whether that be ordinary ordelegated.” (§1) “A lower authority, however,” may “interfere in cases referred to higherauthority” 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 restorationof 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 andseal of the Kingdom. The Templar Order also possesses ordinary authority independent from theKingdom as established by facts of the historical record.

When the new planned “Holy See” of Paul Burton and Paul Roberts circumvented both IRCC andthe Templar Order to replace the Protocol directly with the Kingdom as the higher authority, theTemplar Grand Master duly notified the Kingdom of the unlawful interference, but this waseclipsed 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 isevidenced by a Letter from the Lord Chancellor of the Kingdom addressed to all officers of theTemplar 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. Thatauthority from the original Protocol therefore remains in full legal force and effect, serving as astanding obstacle precluding any validity of the replacement Protocol, until such time as theTemplar 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 usean unauthorized “altered one”. Since the original Protocol was never terminated by consent ofthe parties it remained in force, and the replacement Protocol was thus void by Canon Law.

4

Under Canon 1381 §1, it is a punishable violation to “usurp an ecclesiastical office”, and Canon1389 prohibits to “abuse ecclesiastical power or an office” including in furtherance of usurping anecclesiastical office or institution. Canon Law thus mandates that the Clergy from under theauthority of Cardinal Khern Oliver in the IRCC, by abusing their positions to usurp the IRCC and theplanned restoration of the Holy See as a whole, thereby invalidated any claim to ecclesiasticalauthority 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 notprevent 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 institutionalvehicle for unifying a network of Churches” (Page 1, “Preamble”). The substance of the Protocolwas 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 ApostolicSuccession vested in the [IRCC] shall be passed on to the Holy See” (Page 3, “Reconstitution”). Asthe 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 theintended “restoration”.

The facts in the present matter establish that the Churches which contained all generalmembership of IRCC are independent third parties, who by their own right and free will refused tojoin the Holy See of Antioch under Paul Burton and Paul Roberts, in mass protest against whatthey perceived as “usurpation” of IRCC and Cardinal Khern Oliver as its founding Episcopalauthority, who exclusively possesses the referenced 66 lines of Apostolic succession.

It should be noted, that the Court verified documentation of the membership who withdrew inprotest, establishing that it constitutes more than 40 Churches in over 36 countries with hundredsof subsidiary Churches, having total membership exceeding 2 million, including over 157,000Clergy ministering to the general membership. This gives weight and significance to the “massprotest”, demonstrating that the adverse actions had a widespread negative impact on a largegroup of affected parties. This direct membership also indirectly represents an estimated 15million 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 owninitiative, 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 thenecessary acts could be implemented.

The new “Holy See” by its own actions thereby prevented the necessary steps from beingcompleted. As a direct result, no such official act of transfer by the required “legal assignmentand delegation” was ever executed, and no canonical vesting of the Apostolic lines was achieved.

5

The “Protocol of Restoration” was never implemented, and its procedures and steps forrestoration were never completed. All membership was lost as alienated by the planned HolySee, and the Protocol became impossible to implement by frustration of its purpose and loss of itssubject matter. Therefore, as a legal fact, the planned “restoration” never occurred, and can nolonger 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 ecclesiasticalinstitution, 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 wasnot known to the Court at that time, was issued only to “the body known as The Holy See ofAntioch” at that time. That evidences that it was originally issued in reliance upon the samedocuments which the Court had relied upon. It also evidences that the Royal grant was in factissued to the IRCC headed by Cardinal Khern Oliver, and not to the new entity as usurped by theplanned “Holy See” headed by Paul Burton and Paul Roberts.

The Letters Patent (as amended) appears to grant “the full right power and authority to exerciseecclesiastical Canon Law as the Holy See”. However, as a matter of law, a Royal House does notpossess pontifical ecclesiastical authority, which historically was always strictly separate fromRoyal 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 ofEngland from the Roman Catholic Church ca. 1534 AD, declaring royal supremacy over theresulting Church within his territorial jurisdiction. The King was excommunicated for that by theVatican in 1533 AD (J.J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, 2nd Ed., Yale University Press (1997), p.361), provingthat 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 onterritoriality, 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… asthe Royal Protector”. However, as a matter of law, a Royal House does not possess juridicalauthority to create “Nation State” status by its own volition alone, in the absence of many otherfactors 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) waswitnessed by participants at the time, which merely “recognized” the Holy See, withoutpurporting to grant sweeping canonical ecclesiastical authorities and international law statusbeyond the scope of Royal Fons Honourum. This supports the conclusion that the Kingdom wascoerced 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 whowere suddenly changed, is prima facie evidence of unlawful interference by the new “Holy See”.

6

The multiple defects in the replacement Protocol and the Letters Patent, apparently resultingfrom haste, combined with the visibly evident misappropriation of the intellectual property of theoriginal Protocol and a Constitution developed by the Templar Order, is prima facie evidence ofusurpation 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 RoyalProtector” 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 aPatriarchate beyond the limitations of Royal Protection, nor indications of any of the multiplefactors required to be a “Nation State” under customary international law. As a result, theplanned “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 onlyproperly describe its juridical status as being a “sovereign subject of international law”, solely bythe legitimate Royal authority of the Kingdom. However, such claim could only be made unlessand until such time as the Kingdom would exercise its royal prerogative to revoke and terminateits Letters Patent.

Compelling evidence indicates that the Kingdom did in fact revoke and terminate its RoyalProtection of the usurped Holy See of Antioch:

On 23 December 2014 the Sovereign of the Royal House issued brief written statements to theTemplar Order: “Please inform the Holy See that I want nothing to do with them. … Everything isin your hands now.” Only 11 days later on 03 January 2015, manifestly in reaction to revocationof its Letters Patent, the “Holy See” posted on its Facebook page (names redacted): “We werehere 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 inwriting: “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 itsonly juridical connection to succession from the original historical institution of the Holy See ofAntioch;

By usurping the Independent Rite of Catholic Churches and Cardinal Khern Oliver who hadordained 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 orstatehood;

By all of that misconduct of unlawful interference, it also alienated all of the independentChurches in the collective, losing the entire membership for the planned restoration of theChurch, consisting of over 2 million members.

Therefore, as established by all available evidence, the Court cannot recognize any lawful basis forthe name of the usurped entity to contain the word “Antioch” or the phrase “Holy See”, nor for itto claim any pontifical authority, nor to style itself as having any aspect of statehood.

7

As a result of its own wrongful actions, the current claimed “Holy See of Antioch” has therebyforced the Court to revoke and annul the Judiciary Recognition letter of 09 September 2014 whichwas 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 anyparticular 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 uponas official investigative findings of fact.

This Act also serves to put the parties involved on legal notice that they may incur liabilities tothird parties for any misrepresentations which they might make in contradiction of theestablished legal facts as presented herein.

This document is not intended as a public statement, but rather is issued privately to the partiesinvolved, and to third parties who are directly affected. However, the Court and all affectedparties have a protected right to disclose or display this Act as may be reasonably necessary andappropriate to uphold their lawful rights and interests.

The correction or resolution of any apparent legal defects in documents or transactions indicatedin 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 hostNGO institution, or any Officer of the Court, including investigative or enforcement lay judgeswhose status is indicated in a public profile online, or through any third parties associated witheither the Court or the present subject matter, whether directly or indirectly, constitutes apunishable criminal violation of international law, which shall be prosecuted to the fullestextent 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 thepresent document, making its contents binding and enforceable by force of international law.

Endorsed and Ratified by Official SealChancellor of Chamber of Instruction JudgesSovereign Court DivisionArbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ)

26 February 2015

7

As a result of its own wrongful actions, the current claimed “Holy See of Antioch” has therebyforced the Court to revoke and annul the Judiciary Recognition letter of 09 September 2014 whichwas 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 anyparticular 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 uponas official investigative findings of fact.

This Act also serves to put the parties involved on legal notice that they may incur liabilities tothird parties for any misrepresentations which they might make in contradiction of theestablished legal facts as presented herein.

This document is not intended as a public statement, but rather is issued privately to the partiesinvolved, and to third parties who are directly affected. However, the Court and all affectedparties have a protected right to disclose or display this Act as may be reasonably necessary andappropriate to uphold their lawful rights and interests.

The correction or resolution of any apparent legal defects in documents or transactions indicatedin 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 hostNGO institution, or any Officer of the Court, including investigative or enforcement lay judgeswhose status is indicated in a public profile online, or through any third parties associated witheither the Court or the present subject matter, whether directly or indirectly, constitutes apunishable criminal violation of international law, which shall be prosecuted to the fullestextent 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 thepresent document, making its contents binding and enforceable by force of international law.

Endorsed and Ratified by Official SealChancellor of Chamber of Instruction JudgesSovereign Court DivisionArbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ)

26 February 2015

7

As a result of its own wrongful actions, the current claimed “Holy See of Antioch” has therebyforced the Court to revoke and annul the Judiciary Recognition letter of 09 September 2014 whichwas 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 anyparticular 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 uponas official investigative findings of fact.

This Act also serves to put the parties involved on legal notice that they may incur liabilities tothird parties for any misrepresentations which they might make in contradiction of theestablished legal facts as presented herein.

This document is not intended as a public statement, but rather is issued privately to the partiesinvolved, and to third parties who are directly affected. However, the Court and all affectedparties have a protected right to disclose or display this Act as may be reasonably necessary andappropriate to uphold their lawful rights and interests.

The correction or resolution of any apparent legal defects in documents or transactions indicatedin 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 hostNGO institution, or any Officer of the Court, including investigative or enforcement lay judgeswhose status is indicated in a public profile online, or through any third parties associated witheither the Court or the present subject matter, whether directly or indirectly, constitutes apunishable criminal violation of international law, which shall be prosecuted to the fullestextent 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 thepresent document, making its contents binding and enforceable by force of international law.

Endorsed and Ratified by Official SealChancellor of Chamber of Instruction JudgesSovereign Court DivisionArbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ)

26 February 2015