Talk:Vilatte orders

See main disccussion

For discussion about split, please see "far too long for anyone to read" section on Talk:René Vilatte page

The following is a short research report on the sovereignty claims of the so-called Abbey-Principality of San Luigi (http://san-luigi.org)

This religious order claims they achieved the full right of sovereignty over a few acres or less on the continent of Africa for a period of about one year ending in 1844 after which they were forced to depart. The major problem with this erroneous claim is it is in direct violation of international law, because it was on someone else’s lawful territory. This, in and of itself, makes their claim illegal and therefore invalid. To illustrate and perceive how flawed this claim is – the idea of holding sovereignty within another nation’s territory -- all one needs to do is extend this irrational idea to its logical conclusion. That is, if the Catholic Church could set up tiny abbeys and monasteries all over the earth and declare them to be independent sovereignties, we could conceivably have, instead of about 150 nations, 50,000 little countries all over the earth. But then again, carrying this ridiculous theory further, the Orthodox Church and others could do the same thing and set up nation-states within the sovereign abbeys created by the Catholic Church on the same principle, because in this scenario, sovereignty means little or nothing, independence is a meaningless ideal. Such a theory eliminates sovereignty and supremacy altogether. It is to throw out all international sovereignty law. In other words, the idea behind their claim is without any validity or wholesome benefit to the nations of the earth, who are organized under the rule of sovereign independence as a central fundamental feature of the rule of internaitonal and domestic law. The point is:

"No rule is clearer than the precept that no State [or other sovereign entity] may lawfully attempt to exercise [or hold valid] sovereignty within the territory of another."[1]

"Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political authority over a defined territory (land, airspace and certain maritime areas such as the territorial sea) and the people within that territory. No other State [or other entity like an abbey] can have formal political authority [sovereignty] within that State [or kingdom]."[2] (emphasis added)

Only by the crime of usurpation could they exercise sovereignty authority on someone else’s land. Legally, the only way a usurper can gain lawful or true sovereignty over another's territory is after 50 to 100 years of uncontested, undisputed, public exercise of such. However, their claim was only for a little over one year. This is absolute proof that they never gained any kind of real or authentic sovereignty. If they did exercise authentic or genuine sovereignty in this populated desert land over their tiny property, it was in violation of the sovereignty of the rulers and the people who lived there. It was in full breach of the highest secular law on earth. Such a claim is not legal. It "gives them no right whatsoever."[3]

You can’t disobey the only laws on earth that can create valid sovereignty and somehow magically obtain it some other way like a thief and a robber. Sovereignty, the highest secular right on earth, can only be achieved by obeying the laws that govern its birth and creation. Therefore, no person, no organization, no religious order or abbey, not even another sovereign nation, can lawfully assume any kind of legitimate or valid sovereign jurisdiction or rights in another country's territory without permission. This would be in direct defiance of international law.

The unfounded claim of this religious order was, according to their own writings, based on discovery of uninhabited land, or land inhabited by a nomadic people. One of the major problems with this is ". . . that territories inhabited by nomadic peoples living as ‘organized societies’ were not to be considered terra nullius [uninhabited] open to acquisition by occupation."[4] The land which they claimed was already occupied for thousands of years by an ancient kingdom with a long history and succession of rulers and kings, who ultimately became free from the domination of three prior Empires: the Roman, Byzantine. The point is, the land of the Fezzan was not terra nullius or empty of people. The Tuareg land had seven major confederations. Each ruled over by a supreme Chief called "Amenokal" who governed with a counsel of elders from each tribe. There were actually more people subsisting in this land under their own sovereign indigenous governments than there are now in modern times. They possessed the land having over 35 towns and 100 villages and were supreme in the use of their own laws and judgments. The government is monarchial; but its power are administered with such regard to the happiness of the people, the rights of property so revered, the taxes so moderate, and justice, directed by such a firm, yet temperate hand that the people are ardently attaché to their sovereign.[5]

Having sovereignty, no one could come into their land like a foreign Catholic Abbey in Moslem territory and establish a new little country in their midst without their full permission and authorization. This would be a violation, or blatant breach, of their territorial integrity – a fundamental rule of international law. The point: The Abbey was nothing more than an Abbey, which only lasted less than one year before they were entirely removed by the people of the land who had rejected them.

The people and the kingdoms that existed in this area were composed of a much larger population in the 19th century than now live upon the land. The reason this Catholic religious order took residence in this place was because this land was occupied. If there was not much potential for people to be converted to Christianity, it would never have been founded there. The idea that this land was terra nullius or empty of an organized people was historically inaccurate. This fact alone invalidates their claim – a claim that is historically unsupportable.

They claim that the Catholic Church recognized them as sovereign, but admit that no proof exists to substantiate this. The problem here is that recognition does not create sovereignty. ". . . Sovereignty is neither created by recognition nor destroyed by nonrecognition."[6] Recognition simply cannot make something false into something true. You can't make the world flat, just because the nations of the earth may have recognized it as such at one point in time. Neither the Catholic Church nor any other sovereign entity has the legal right to create internal sovereignty over someone else’s land. No one can legally do this.

In addition, in international law, if there is no proof that something occurred, it becomes nothing more than pie in the sky or a nice sounding fairy tale.

It is true that there was such a religious order that owned some property there in Africa at the time, but this does not magically transform them or anyone else into a supreme free and independant nation or principality, especially without the support of the only laws on earth that can produce the genuine sovereign right to rule.

[1] R. Y. Jennings, The Acquisition of Territory in International Law, 1963, p. 2.

[2] Robert Beckman and Dagmar Butte, Introduction to International Law, p. 2; 2013: http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/intlawintro.pdf. [3] Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 3, chapter 11, no. 183.

[4] Stephen C. McCaffrey, Dinah Shelton and John Cerone, Public International Law: Cases, Problems, and Texts, 2010, no. 4.2.1.

[5] Richard Brookes, Brookes' General Gazetter abridged: Containing a Geographical Description of the Contries, Cities, Towns, Forts, Seas, Rivers, Lakes, Mountains, Capes, &c. in the Known World, “Fezzan,” 1796.

[6] The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, edition 15, part 3, vol 17, 1981, p. 312. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.19.194 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did read The abbey principality in international law. I believe it is very neutral to think that when about a dozen men go into a foreign country and claim to be sovereign and rule over the inhabitants is equivalent to thinking that a sports team drinking in a pub and agreeing they like the pub and the neighborhood decide that it is now their own with no regard for the pub owner or the neighbors. When the outraged neighbors chase the team out, the team knows they are not wanted and the pub is not theirs – regardless of what they tell their mates at the next pub they drink at.

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Shameful article

I am sorry to say that this article is really unfair, biased and written only under a roman catholic view. It is a breach in the neutrality of Wikipedia. It seems that this article is just an accusation, not a fair information providing a neutral point of view.

The Valensi affair is too long and has over 100 years ! This part of history has more than probably nothing to do with the current orders.

I think the authors should have read this http://san-luigi.org/chivalry/the-san-luigi-orders/history-of-the-order-of-the-crown-of-thorns/ and may be tried to have updated information and data's, not those published in pro-roman catholics newspapers of the early 20th Century.

This is a shame !

--SpartakusFreeMann (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you SpartakusFreeMann for reading the Vilatte Orders article. I believe your accusation that the Vilatte Orders article is not neutral is unfounded. Yes, I am Catholic. Are you implying that a Catholic cannot write a neutral article? I did write a neutral article about the various groups which René Vilatte is connected with.

I did read History of the order of the crown of thorns and found nothing written about the Valensi affair but did find the website used excerpt from the La Croix article which I cited which in fact is the diploma that Vilatte was accused of peddling. It is something that was known and is known but just not written about. If there is more about these groups please add it.

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Valensi affair

This is not a fair information as the sources are mainly antimasonic papers. There is absolutely no proof that Mgr. Vilatte was engaged in any of traffic, except in some far-right roman catholic papers. --SpartakusFreeMann (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Valensi affair

On April 18, 1911, Le Petit Parisien reported that the Faubourg-Montmartre Police Commissioner and three magistrates searched Guillaume Valensi's home and office were they seized numerous diplomas and the flag of an order created by Valensi, a Tunisian. One of Valenti's accomplices was Clémenti, the president of the Ligue Nationale Humanitaire, a Corsican. Documents and blank diplomas of decorations of various orders were seized during a search of Clémenti's home. They included a number of blanks printed in Arabic and other bearing what purported to be, the signatures of Clemenceau, Henri Brisson, Victor Henri Rochefort, Marquis de Rochefort-Luçay, Léon Gambetta, and Victor Hugo. The evidence was filed in criminal court. Following the search, Valensi's brother, a doctor, requested that the court order a psychological evaluation of the accused. According to The North-China Herald and Supreme Court & Consular Gazette, Valensi was not placed on trial with the other five men because of his "breakdown of the mental faculties". The investigation was begun after a client became suspicious of the authenticity of the signatures and reported the whole affair. He revealed in a deposition that he purchased a diploma of the Tunisian order of Nichan Iftikhar for eighty francs from Clémenti. According to the deposition, Valensi sent the client to Clémenti, who provided the diploma. Valensi and Clémenti were arrested on charges of fraud and trafficking illegal decorations. According to The New York Times, the Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger reported that the trafficking in decorations scandal spread as far as Berlin were many well known persons were decorated. As it spread, searches were carried out against Valensi and his accomplices which led to several arrests. According to the trial record, Valensi's "part in the play was to pose as chief secretary to the Bey of Tunis, in which capacity he was supposed to be able to bestow the order of the Nichan Iftikar on deserving persons, for a consideration."

Valensi deceived many people. The New Zealand Herald described how the town of Lille had been "hoaxed in the most complete and amusing manner" by Valensi and two accomplices, who duped the authorities into thinking that they were Moorish notables. Valensi advertised the visit of Kaid Said Garda to Lille, described as a representative of the Sultan of Morocco. The Kaid and another "Moorish official" appeared, each wearing a burnous, and with them Valensi, in a red fez. They were received at the railway station by the local authorities and a number of Lille adherents of the "Order of the Golden Crescent of Morocco". The affair created great excitement in the town. At Valensi's hotel the Flag of Morocco was flown from the balcony. Speeches were made at a banquet by the Kaid in broken French and Valensi, and subsequently a number of decorations were distributed. The prefect of police in the town was nominated an officer of the "Golden Cross of Italy". Some well-known politicians were implicated in the scandal. It was revealed during the trial, that while in Lille, "the 'ambassadors' invited a couple of ladies whose language and gestures were so highly Parisian that the effect of the 'Mission' was spoilt. This story made everyone in Court laugh [...]" according to The North-China Herald and Supreme Court & Consular Gazette.

Vilatte was also implicated in the Valensi affair by being identified as the Marie Timothée of the Principality of San Luigi, whose signature appeared on diplomas of the Order of the Lion and the Black Cross trafficked by Valensi, who was described as a propagator of honorary and bizarre distinctions. Vilatte responded to Le Catholique Français article, based on Le Matin's article, about the diploma by stating that the story discredited him by incorrectly identifying him as the signatory. He declared that he had nothing to do with the published diploma, with Valensi, or with the Order of the Lion and the Black Cross and that his authentic OCT had nothing in common with the diploma from the Principality of San Luigi. "I do not bear the title of Marie Timothée, much less that of Prince, Grand Master of the Order of the Lion and the Black Cross", asserted Vilatte. He wrote that he never signed any document as Marie Timothée or Mar Timothée and made clear that he was given the religious name of Mar Timothéus I and not Marie Timothée. Vilatte was correct on two points. Neither La Croix nor Le Matin mentioned the name "Vilatte" or "Timothéus"; the diploma, which was printed in both La Croix and Le Matin, also did not mention the name "Vilatte" or "Timothéus". Le Catholique Français asked Vilatte about the identity of the Mar Timothée, diploma signatory, but he did not respond.

In 1913 La Revue critique des idées et des livres printed an article about the Valensi affair based on Maurice Pujo's Pourquoi l'on a étouffé l'affaire Valensi. Pujo connected the Valensi affair to organized crime centering around Georges Brassard and E. Deyber. Brassard was a wine merchant, a Radical Party executive committee delegate affiliated with Freemasonry and director of l'Agence spéciale parisienne. Deyber was a dismissed Sûreté Générale Police Commissioner.

Brassard and Deyber, added Pujo, provided houses for white slave trade and prostitution.

Pujo listed eight societies which mushroomed from Brassard's conglomerate or Republican policy as:

• National League for Civic Education (la Ligue nationale d'Education civique),
• National Humanitarian League (la Ligue nationale humanitaire),
• League of the Public Interest (la Ligue de l'Intérêt public),
• Grand Prix Humanitarian of France and the Colonies (le Grand Prix Humanitaire de France et des Colonies),
• Red Crescent of Morocco (le Croissant Rouge du Maroc), "an order which existed only in the fertile imagination of Valensi".
• National Society for the Encouragement of Progress (la Société nationale d'Encouragement au progrès),
• Knights of Saint Sebastian and William (les Chevaliers de Saint-Sébastien et Guillaume),
• Free State of Counani (l'Etat libre de Counani), which was exposed as a deception by 1906, according to seized documents, Valensi was Chancellor to the Consul-General in Paris for the make-believe state.

Pujo included an excerpt from a letter written by Collet, secretary of most Brassard companies, to Adolphe Brézet, "president of the Free State of Counani", stated that Brézet would receive, among several blank diplomas sent to him, a blank "officer of San Luigi" diploma.

And also this is infamous and libel to flag these orders in "scam" !

--SpartakusFreeMann (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to determine what are "antimasonic papers", there was criminal activity – people were tried and convicted.

Marie Timothée of the Principality of San Luigi was implicated in connection to diploma that is found and recognized on the San Luigi website. Vilatte stated that the story discredited him by incorrectly identifying him as the signatory Marie Timothée of the Principality of San Luigi. You misunderstand what I wrote. The organized crime conglomerate that was involved in the Valensi affair was behind the diploma in question, not Vilatte. Again, I believe that Vilatte was truthful and was not Marie Timothée of the Principality of San Luigi. If there is more about who Marie Timothée of the Principality of San Luigi was please add it.

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is not neutral and its content is against the Wikipedia charter

Please do not erase my changes, there is no vandalism, I am just amazed to see the sources of this articles are mainly far-right French ranti-masonic papers.

I am also surprised to see the page on René Vilatte. It is biased and not neutral as well.

I ask a moderator to intervene.

I do not make any litigation threat, I do not reprensent San Luigi, I was just pointing out that the article is diffamatory.

If this is against Wikipedia to try to shed some lights on this article then ban me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartakusFreeMann (talk • contribs) 09:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is not defamatory. I am in fact defending René Vilatte by including his statement that the story discredited him by incorrectly identifying him as the signatory Marie Timothée of the Principality of San Luigi. Again, diploma is recognized on the San Luigi website. Are you writing that [san-luigi.org] is not a reliable source?

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Valensi affair

This affair has absolutely nothing to do with the Order of the Lion. Where are the legal proofs of the assertions published here ?

Mgr. Vilatte never met Valensi. Where are the proofs he did ?

Again, this article is just the charge of a roman catholic point of view against a Religious current that is not willing to recognize the rule of their pope. Nothing less, nothing more.

--Spartakus FreeMann 12:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartakusFreeMann (talk • contribs)

Yes, the Order of the Lion and the Black Cross is a focus of the Valensi affair. I don't understand what you mean by "the legal proofs of the assertions published here". You misunderstand what I wrote. I believe Vilatte. Vilatte wrote that he never met Valensi – that is one of the points that Vilatte made when he refuted a connection to Order of the Lion and the Black Cross diploma which is found and recognized on the San Luigi website. Again, I believe that Vilatte was truthful and was not Marie Timothée of the Principality of San Luigi. I don't understand how believing Vilatte is "a roman catholic point of view against a Religious current that is not willing to recognize the rule of their pope".

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, then I misunderstood, but citing Gayr as a source for somebody who claimed himself to be a "strasserian" guy is dubious, don't you think? Moreover, you are not clear in the accusations you post against Vilate, Order of Thorn... Well, it you and your conscience. Nothing to add, I don't want to lose time here, as it is obvious the discussion is biased. For your information, when writing an article, the references are first checked. Action française, Pujo, Gayr, all these are more than doubtful. And useless to give a link to a picture placed on abbey sans louigi site, it means nothing. Out of context. --Spartakus FreeMann 21:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)