Private Instrument of Establishment and Articles of Creation for the ECCLESIASTIC Court of the People

The court is officially named the Atrium Autem Aequitate de Templi Ordo Lux (The Ecclesiastical Court of  The Order of Light). It has evolved from its original name, and can be referred to by various names like “Court,” “Peoples Court,” or “Court of Light.” The term “People” refers to the living beings comprising the society’s body politic, distinct from the public Romanized system.

The Court is rooted in principles of Law and Equity, following universally accepted maxims and common law precedents. It is Ecclesiastical in nature, non-denominational, and not bound by public statutes or other legal systems. The term “Ecclesiastical” is derived from the Greek “Ekklesia,” meaning “those set apart” or the “body of the congregation.” The Law of the People is supreme, overriding other jurisdictional claims. It operates within international principles, such as those in the UN Charter and the International Covenants, respecting the right to self-determination and equal rights.

The Court’s Ineffable Objectives are to establish a robust judicial system preserving Law’s integrity, safeguarding People’s rights, and protecting the land. It aims to provide a forum for justice, equity, and the protection of equitable interests and beneficial rights. The term “ineffable” reflects the pursuit of transcendence and unity, guided by Universal Law and the sanctity of all life. The goal is to create a unified field where society thrives, individuals enjoy secure rights, and diverse creative expression is upheld, ultimately promoting justice and equity.

The Ecclesiastical Court of  The Order of Light is hereby established as the judicial body responsible for interpreting, enforcing, and preserving the doctrines, discipline, and internal matters of the church.

i. Establishment and Purpose

This Charter formally establishes the Ecclesiastic Court of the Order of Light (“The Court”), an ecclesiastical tribunal dedicated to preserving the sanctity and unity of doctrine within The Order of Light. The Court’s purpose is to adjudicate on matters of faith, discipline, and doctrinal interpretation, governing spiritual and ethical disputes under the religious framework of The Order of Light.

The Court Will use the Church’s Official Seal as provisioned by the Charter.

Official Flags will be the International Flag of Peace and the flag of The Nation of Luxton.

ii. Jurisdiction and Authority

SECTION I : JURISDICTION

The Court has exclusive authority over all internal disputes, disciplinary actions, and doctrinal matters pertaining to The Order of Light. This jurisdiction encompasses:

• Internal Disputes: Addressing conflicts between members or clergy that involve doctrinal misunderstandings or allegations of faith-related misconduct.
• Disciplinary Actions: Overseeing proceedings and issuing disciplinary measures aligned with the spiritual tenets of The Order.
• Doctrinal Interpretation: Providing authoritative interpretations on spiritual matters to ensure doctrinal purity and uniform adherence among clergy and lay members.

The court has sole jurisdiction over matters concerning church doctrine, membership, and internal governance, with no interference from civil courts as protected under Watson v. Jones and Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich. The official description of the jurisdictional boundaries shall be called “The Supreme Ecclesiastical Court of Light of the Nation of Luxton”, or doing business as “The Court of Light”, or “The Nation of Luxton”, whos address is ,Publicly redacted, with the official registered mailing address of 3175 Adeline Street, Suite #3617, Berkeley, California. This is the official Government of the Church and Her People.

SECTION II: LEGAL AND NON-INTERFERENCE CLAUSE

Decisions rendered by The Court in its ecclesiastical capacity are binding within the religious domain of The Order of Light. Secular courts are requested to recognize the autonomous and non-secular nature of this body, consistent with the principles of religious liberty and freedom.

iii. STRUCTURE OF THE COURT

SECTION 1: COURT Composition

The Court shall consist of key officials as follows:

Presiding Bishop: Serves as the principal adjudicator and moral overseer, ensuring that all decisions align with the foundational beliefs of The Order.

Chief Arbiter: Acts as the chief judicial officer to guide legal procedures and assist in doctrinal deliberations.

Tribunal Clergy Members: Selected senior clergy members who bring insight and spiritual knowledge to the Court’s deliberations and decisions.

Section 2: Roles and Duties

Presiding Bishop: Manages the Court’s operations, upholds the Court’s rulings, and has the authority to enact emergency rulings on matters requiring immediate doctrinal guidance.

Chief Arbiter: Directs legal procedures and assists in interpreting legal texts relevant to ecclesiastical law.

Tribunal Clergy Members: Contribute to the decision-making process, offering wisdom and theological perspective to reach consensus in adjudications.

The Court of the People shall have exclusive irrevocable jurisdiction to settle any dispute or claim, (including but not limited to cases involving wills, marriages, Inquisitions, parsonages and the matters of all of her Members.

Governing Law:

Templi Ordo Lux invokes Firstly the Law of ONE, which is the Supreme Law.

Secondary Law: the 7 Principals of the Universe, sometimes called “Hermetic Principals”.

Tertiary Law:  Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution (which is known as the Supremacy Clause, provides that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” )

Ecclesiastical Laws are promulgated by the universal edition Acts of the Apostolic See official commentary in order of faith, truth, and fairness

Venue:

The Court, Ceremonies, and Rites shall be held in Her (Temple) Courtyard

section 3: Offices of the Court

Additional Offices shall include, but are not limited to the following:

The Court of Lords

The Court of Lords is the Supreme Court of the Board of Elders, Bishops, and Grand Council of Luxton, responsible for specially intervening on behalf of the People and Foreign Entities, Probate and Operation of LAW

The Court of Record

The court of Record, also called “Hall of Records” is responsible for the Recording, Storage, and Dissemination of all documents, passports, manuals, and Ecclesiastic Events. Its Initial Executive Secretary is Ronald Senior, TTEE (AKA Ronald Jones) and bears the Seal until a successor is appointed.

Office of the Cursitor/Chief Clerk

The office of the Cursitor shall prescribe writs, prayers, instrumentation of rites and rituals, and banking instruments

Office of Seals and Signs

The Office of Seals and Signs (dba RONALD JUNIOR RANDLEMAN) is the responsible party for copyrights, seals, artworks, sigils, libraries, patents/trademarks, logos, flags, endorsements and IP of the Templi Ordo Lux.

Office of Judicial Coroner

The Office of Judicial Coroner shall be responsible for the health and well-fare of the People and will summon a jury of quorum, petite, or grand jury as deemed necessary by the Coroner.

Office of the Grand Council of Elders

The Nation of Luxton shall be the official governmental body of the Church and her People, and additional Offices and/or Departments will be founded from time to time, at the discretion of Sahib.

Office of Labor

The Office of Labor, (dba Human Capital Innovations Systems/HCIS, LLC) Is responsible for Electing and Appointing Employess and Contracts, and is the General Coaching & Education / Human Resource Department of the Church.

The Foundation

The Foundation is the not for profit, charity trust of the people

Office of the Treasury

Randleman National Bank Estate &Trust (Randleman National Bank E&T) Is the sole Fiduciary Agent, Commodity Broker and Private Bank of the Templi Ordo Lux.

Office of Marshal

The Marshal shall act as sheriff, militia, marshal, and official law enforcement agent of the People.

IV. Documentation and Official Notices

Section 1: Founding Documents and Notices to Governmental Authorities
Formal documentation will notify relevant secular authorities of the establishment and operational jurisdiction of The Court, specifying its function as a religious institution:

IRS Notification: Official notice of The Court’s ecclesiastical operations for alignment with tax-exempt status requirements under IRS guidelines for religious organizations.

Local and State Agencies: Notification to pertinent state authorities confirming The Court’s function within The Order of Light, asserting its exemption from secular jurisdiction over ecclesiastical matters.

Section 2: Internal Documentation
All decisions, records of proceedings, and doctrinal rulings will be maintained and archived by the Tribunal’s clerical staff in compliance with internal governance standards.

V. Compliance with Religious Corporation Laws

Section 1: Religious Corporation Status
The Order of Light, under which The Court operates, will secure nonprofit status through Articles of Incorporation and documentation aligning with federal standards under Section 508(c)(1)(A) of the IRS code for religious tax-exempt organizations.

Section 2: Ecclesiastical Autonomy
The Court asserts its status as a self-governing religious entity, ensuring that all judicial decisions comply with both internal governance standards and applicable federal guidelines concerning nonprofit religious organizations.

Section 3: Amendments and Updates to Charter
Any amendments to this Charter must be proposed by the Presiding Bishop and approved by a majority of Tribunal Clergy Members to reflect changes in doctrine or governance structures necessary for the evolving spiritual mission of The Order.

Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1872):

There is, perhaps, no word in legal terminology so frequently used as the word jurisdiction, so capable of use in a general and vague sense, and which is used so often by men learned in the law without a due regard to precision in its application. As regards its use in the matters we have been discussing, it may very well be conceded that if the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church should undertake to try one of its members for murder, and punish him with death or imprisonment, its sentence would be of no validity in a civil court or anywhere else.

Or if it should at the instance of one of its members entertain jurisdiction as between him and another member as to their individual right to property, real or personal, the right in no sense depending on ecclesiastical questions, its decision would be utterly disregarded by any civil court where it might be set up. And it might be said in a certain general sense very justly that it was because the General Assembly had no jurisdiction of the case. Illustrations of this character could be multiplied in which the proposition of the Kentucky court would be strictly applicable.

But it is a very different thing where a subject matter of dispute, strictly and purely ecclesiastical in its character — a matter over which the civil courts exercise no jurisdiction — a matter which concerns theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required of them — becomes the subject of its action. It may be said here also that no jurisdiction has been conferred on the tribunal to try the particular case before it, or that, in its judgment, it exceeds the powers conferred upon it, or that the laws of the church do not authorize the particular form of proceeding adopted, and, in a sense often used in the courts, all of those may be said to be questions of jurisdiction.

But it is easy to see that if the civil courts are to inquire into all these matters, the whole subject of the doctrinal theology, the usages and customs, the written laws, and fundamental organization of every religious denomination may and must be examined into with minuteness and care, for they would become in almost every case the criteria by which the validity of the ecclesiastical decree would be determined in the civil court. This principle would deprive these bodies of the right of construing their own church laws, would open the way to all the evils which we have depicted as attendant upon the doctrine of Lord Eldon, and would, in effect, transfer to the civil courts where property rights were concerned the decision of all ecclesiastical questions.

And this is precisely what the Court of Appeals of Kentucky did in the case of Watson v. Avery. Under cover of inquiries into the jurisdiction of the synod and presbytery over the congregation and of the General Assembly over all, it went into an elaborate examination of the principles of Presbyterian church government and ended by overruling the decision of the highest judicatory of that church in the United States, both on the jurisdiction and the merits, and, substituting its own judgment for that of the ecclesiastical court, decides that ruling elders, declared to be such by that tribunal, are not such, and must not be recognized by the congregation, though four-fifths of its members believe in the judgment of the Assembly and desired to conform to its decree.

But we need pursue this subject no further. Whatever may have been the case before the Kentucky court, the appellants in the case presented to us have separated themselves wholly from the church organization to which they belonged when this controversy commenced. They now deny its authority, denounce its action, and refuse to abide by its judgments. They have first erected themselves into a new organization, and have since joined themselves to another totally different, if not hostile, to the one to which they belonged when the difficulty first began. Under any of the decisions which we have examined, the appellants, in their present position, have no right to the property, or to the use of it, which is the subject of this suit.

Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976)

The holding of the Illinois Supreme Court constituted improper judicial interference with the decisions of a hierarchical church and in thus interposing its judgment into matters of ecclesiastical cognizance and polity, the court contravened the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

“[W]henever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of [the] church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding. . . .”

Under the guise of “minimal” review of the Mother Church’s decisions that the Illinois Supreme Court deemed “arbitrary,” that court has unconstitutionally undertaken the adjudication of quintessentially religious controversies whose resolution the First Amendment commits exclusively to the highest ecclesiastical tribunals of this hierarchical church.

Though it did not rely on the “fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness” exception to the rule requiring recognition by civil courts of decisions by hierarchical tribunals, but rather on purported “neutral principles” for resolving property disputes in reaching its conclusion that the Mother Church’s reorganization of the American-Canadian Diocese into three Dioceses was invalid, that conclusion also contravened the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The reorganization of the Diocese involves solely a matter of internal church government, an issue at the core of ecclesiastical affairs. Religious freedom encompasses the “power [of religious bodies] to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.” 

Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U. S. 94, 344 U. S. 116. Pp. 426 U. S. 720-724.

Gonzales v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 280 U.S. 1 (1929)