This is the email shared in the link above

Note that the sections skip from 6 to 8 and from 11 to 13.

That could be the lawyers mistake, or the Novus Ordoite (Gareth Thomas Weaver) who is salivating  to "recount [his] part in it to a national UK-wide news outlet which welcomes the authentic accounts of whistleblowers" could have removed them for some reason

Subject: Rebuttal to Revision Docuмent - Safeguarding Allegations Against Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran To: Editors, Where Peter Is

From: Alan R. Kershaw, Advocate for Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran

Dear Editors,

1. Introduction and Notification to Authorities

In the first instance, I bring to your immediate attention that this e-mail is copied to Mr. Paul Sanford, Chief Constable of Norfolk Police, a police force located in the jurisdiction of England and Wales for reasons which will become evident, hereinafter. Furthermore, matters addressed within this e-mail will be raised by my client Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran in a meeting that he will be having with Police Constables from the aforesaid Police Force. this afternoon. October 18. 2025.

2. Overview of Allegations and Context

I write to you in my capacity as legal advocate for Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran in response to the contents of the "Revision of SSPX Resistance Safeguarding" docuмent, which I understand has been circulated or referenced within your editorial purview. I am compelled to address and pre-emptively refute any and all allegations it any contains, particularly those that mirror or derive from the defamatory narrative advanced by the Archbishop of Martinique and Mr. Brendan Kavanagh.

3. Refutation of Allegations from Martinique

Firstly, it behoves me to highlight that my client is entirely innocent of the allegations levelled against him by the Ordinary of Martinique. These accusations are not only false but demonstrably retaliatory in nature.

4. Antecedents of the False Allegations

Mr. Moran submitted two (2) formal Vos estis lux mundi complaints concerning Archbishop David Macaire, OP, in light of serious concerns regarding maladministration and safeguarding failures within the Archdiocese of Martinique.

Around the same time, a laywoman of unimpeachable character submitted a letter to the competent canonical authority, expressing grave concern about Archbishop Macaire's conduct with younger men-specifically referencing a teenager who had been living with the archbishop sin since the age of fourteen (14) at the Episcopal Palace. Archbishop Macaire erroneously believed that Mr. Moran was the author of this letter. However, it has been definitively established that the woman in question stands by her testimony and authorship. Notably, one of the individuals she identified in her letter is among those who later falsely accused Mr. Moran.

This misattribution forms part of a broader pattern of retaliatory conduct by the Archbishop Macaire, which has culminated in the dissemination of unverified and defamatory allegations.

5. Sworn Affidavits and Retaliatory Conduct

The desperation of Archbishop Macaire to absolve himself of his reprehensible conduct is starkly illustrated by the existence of five (5) sworn affidavits. These docuмents attest that five (5) individuals in Martinique were each, separately and independently, approached by the Archbishop and urged to fabricate falsehoods about my client, Mr. Moran. Each of these individuals was appalled by the Archbishop's lack of integrity and refused to comply with his request. Their testimonies speak volumes about the character of the Archbishop Macaire and the scurrilous lengths to which he was willing to go in order to cover-up his own recidivist behaviour with younger men.

6. Clarification Regarding Gareth Thomas Weaver's Article

Gareth Thomas Weaver's recent article contains a deeply misleading assertion: that my client was "laicised in 2024 by the Diocese of Fort-de-France in Martinique after a canonical criminal process found him 'guilty of acts contrary to the sixth commandment with a minor." This claim is not only inaccurate; it is based on a newsletter so riddled with errors and lacking in credibility that it should never have been cited as a reliable source.

Let us be unequivocal. No canonical criminal trial ever took place. Despite repeated requests, my client was never granted the opportunity to defend himself in a formal judicial process. He has never been presented with the specific delicts he is accused of, he has been denied access to the docuмentation and votum of the Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Martinique. And, he had no knowledge of his accusers' identities until he received the Decree of Dismissal.

Instead, my client received a decree of dismissal from the clerical state, not as the result of a trial, but following a so-called "review" conducted by a cleric who is a personal friend of Archbishop Macaire. This same priest harboured a well-known animus toward my client, a fact he did not dispute when confronted with the same in writing and, thereafter, he refused to recuse himself from the canonical deliberations.

This process, lacking transparency, due process, and impartiality, cannot be described as a canonical criminal trial. What occurred in Martinique is contrary to every known principle of natural justice and canonical equity. The purported "facts" as recounted by Mr. Weaver.

8. On-going Recourse Before the Holy See

The matter is currently subject to on-going recourse before the Holy See because my client was NOT in Martinique when the allegations made against him were FABRICATED by Archbishop Macaire. Moreover, this can be established by flight records, passport stamps, and the glaring omissions in the Decree. In effect, my client is dealing with the consequences of an agenda-driven kangaroo court. To suggest otherwise is a grave misrepresentation that unjustly damages my client's reputation and undermines the integrity of canonical justice.

9. Defamatory Conduct by Mr. Brendan Kavanagh

Contrary to the assertions made by Mr. Brendan Kavanagh on his YouTube channel, he has repeatedly referred to my client using scandalous, indecent, and grossly offensive epithets, including "pedo", "pederast", and other inflammatory search terms. These statements were delivered with evident relish and hostility, and are entirely devoid of factual foundation or justification.

The sustained nature of this defamatory commentary, coupled with its public visibility and monetisation, gave rise to a credible apprehension of harm. Given the risk that vigilantes, incited by such rhetoric, might take the law into their own hands and inflict serious harm upon Mr. Moran, a formal complaint was submitted to Bedfordshire Police regarding Mr. Kavanagh's conduct. Thus, the arrest of Mr. Kavanagh was a legitimate, proportional, and operational decision by Bedfordshire Police.

10. Personal Safety

Mr. Moran has been compelled to leave the United Kingdom for extended periods solely for his personal safety. It is within this context, marked by legitimate concern for his physical well-being, that the police became involved, ultimately leading to the arrest of Mr. Kavanagh. Contrary to certain misleading narratives, Mr. Kavanagh's arrest was not precipitated by the mere sending of "angry emails", but rather by his his reckless endangerment of Mr. Moran's safety.

11. Reckless Disclosure of Location by Mr. Weaver

It is possible that Mr. Gareth Thomas Weaver is unaware that my client, Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran, has been required to leave the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom on several occasions during the current calendar year due to credible threats to his personal safety. Regardless of Mr. Weaver's level of awareness, the decision to publicly disclose my client's present location is deeply irresponsible. In the context of ongoing defamatory commentary and heightened public hostility, such disclosure risks inciting vigilante behaviour and places my client in serious physical danger. Any safeguarding framework, whether ecclesiastical, civil, or journalistic, must prioritise the protection of individuals from targeted exposure. Mr. Weaver's publication of sensitive locational information, without any demonstrable justification rooted in public interest, raises significant ethical concerns and may carry legal consequences should harm result from this disclosure.

Whilst I do not possess direct evidentiary proof of the matter, I have been reliably informed that Mr. Gareth Thomas Weaver was permanently banned from the on-line forum and blog "cathinfo.com," where he reportedly operated under the pseudonym "Dunstan." The basis for this ban, as conveyed to me, was his repeated posting of extreme and inflammatory commentary concerning my client, Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran. If this account is accurate-and it appears to be corroborated by multiple independent sources familiar with the forum's moderation history-it raises serious and legitimate concerns regarding Mr. Weaver's impartiality and objectivity in reporting on matters involving my client.

The use of pseudonymous online platforms to disseminate prejudicial content, particularly when such content targets an individual involved in on-going legal and ecclesiastical proceedings, undermines the credibility of any subsequent journalistic output by the same author. In academic and professional contexts, impartiality is not merely a virtue-it is a prerequisite for ethical engagement. Accordingly, any editorial reliance upon Mr. Weaver's reporting should be approached with caution, and his prior conduct must be considered when assessing the integrity and reliability of his published assertions.

13. Questioning Mr. Weaver's Objectivity

It is both reasonable and necessary to question whether Mr. Gareth Thomas Weaver can be regarded as an objective commentator in this matter, or whether he has, perhaps unwittingly, become a conduit for Mr. Brendan Kavanagh's revenge-driven campaign against my client, Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran. While Mr. Weaver may consider himself well- intentioned, the tenor and content of his reporting suggest a predisposition that aligns more closely with advocacy than impartial journalism. His apparent reliance on unverified claims, coupled with a failure to engage with exculpatory evidence or alternative perspectives, undermines the credibility of his narrative and calls into question the integrity of his editorial judgment.

14. False Claims Regarding Bishop Paul Morgan

It is categorically untrue that Bishop Paul Morgan visited any London-based police station in connection with the arrest of Mr. Brendan Kavanagh. This claim, made by Mr. Kavanagh during his interview with Ian Collins, is demonstrably false and can be disproven by reference to the official records of the Metropolitan Police. No such visit occurred, and any suggestion to the contrary constitutes a fabrication. Importantly, this is not a matter of conjecture but one of verifiable fact, and any responsible journalistic outlet would be expected to seek corroboration before repeating such a claim.

15. Mr. Moran's Co-operation with Authorities

My client, Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran, has proactively self-reported the allegations made against him to a UK police force. He has co-operated fully with law enforcement and safeguarding authorities, demonstrating a consistent commitment to transparency and accountability. In addition to his engagement with UK authorities, Mr. Moran is in possession of multiple police background backgroun checks, including one issued by the Republic of Ireland-a jurisdiction renowned for its stringent vetting protocols, particularly in matters involving child protection and clerical oversight. These checks confirm unequivocally that Mr. Moran has no criminal record and no history of misconduct.

Moreover, the fact that Mr. Weaver has identified where my client is currently residing in light of the fact he has had to leave the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom on more than one occasion during the course of this year is reckless and is encouraging of vigilantes that puts my client's physical safety in grave danger.

16. Misidentification and Fabricated Interview Claim

Whilst there are numerous additional inaccuracies within Mr. Gareth Thomas Weaver's article many of which verge on the implausible and would render this correspondence encyclopaedic in length were each to be addressed; I am nonetheless duty-bound to highlight the most egregious instances of misrepresentation and demonstrable deceit.

To that end, I can confirm unequivocally that Mr. Weaver did not speak with my client, Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran. Had Mr. Weaver exercised even a modicuм of journalistic diligence, he would have discerned that the individual with whom he conversed was of Caribbean extraction-a fact that is immediately apparent upon listening to the recording of the conversation. The assertion that Mr. Moran spoke "with a Welsh accent and traces of Irish inflection [sic]" is not only inaccurate but demonstrably false. It is either the product of negligent reporting or a deliberate misrepresentation. Moreover, the telephone conversation in question was recorded and can be made available upon request, thereby providing objective evidence that Mr. Weaver's claim is wholly unfounded.

17. Impersonation and Criminal Misrepresentation

During the course of the aforementioned telephone conversation, Mr. Gareth Thomas Weaver unequivocally claimed, on three separate occasions, to be a priest affiliated with the Diocese of Perpignan. These assertions are preserved in recorded telephone conversations, thereby rendering any subsequent denial untenable. More gravely, and in a manner that may constitute criminal impersonation under the laws of England and Wales, Mr. Weaver further represented himself as Mr. Philippe Sands, the distinguished Jєωιѕн barrister and internationally recognised academic. This act of misrepresentation srepre is not only ethically indefensible but also potentially unlawful, raising serious concerns regarding Mr. Weaver's conduct and intent.

Accordingly, this matter will be referred to the appropriate police authorities for investigation. These claims are not speculative; they are substantiated by audio recordings that remain available for evidentiary review. It is for these reasons that I have specifically instructed my client, Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran, to raise this issue of impersonation and misrepresentation during his scheduled meeting with constables from Norfolk Police this afternoon, October 18, 2025.

18. Conclusion: Editorial Responsibility and Recommendation

In light of the foregoing, it is both reasonable and necessary to conclude that Mr. Gareth Thomas Weaver is not a reliable or impartial commentator on matters concerning Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran. His conduct, as outlined in the rebuttal, reflects a pattern of misrepresentation, ethical lapses, and potentially unlawful behaviour-including impersonation and the reckless endangerment of a vulnerable individual.

Mr. Weaver's article, far from constituting responsible journalism, appears to be the product of a misguided campaign that aligns more closely with with personal vendetta than with objective reporting. The cuмulative weight of the rebuttal's evidence-ranging from sworn affidavits and police records to recorded conversations-renders the article not only factually unsound but ethically indefensible.

Accordingly, it is submitted that Mr. Weaver's article should not be published under any circuмstances. To do so would be to lend institutional credibility to a narrative that is demonstrably false, dangerously inflammatory, and injurious to the reputation and safety of an innocent man.

If, this e-mail begets any further queries do not hesitate to be in contact.

Yours faithfully,

Alan R. Kershaw.

It seems there’s a priest supporting Fr Ciaran Moran. Fr Linus Clovis. This priest is not connected to SSPX or SSPX resistance.

https://equusasinus.net/

Thank you for the update. Unfortunately it raises more questions than answers. There seems to be a West Indies connection between Moran and Clovis - see link below. I also noticed that that this Alan R. Kershaw calls him MR. Ciaran Kerry Moran. I looked up who this Kershaw is - he appears to be a Canon Lawyer from Rome. This is rather odd. Why would a Canon lawyer from Rome be supporting a man who has been operating as a priest, even though he had been officially laicised by the Church that Kershaw works for? Why is the mainstream Church now seemingly defending Mr. Moran and not Bishop Morgan? Why is there a total absence of concern that a man who had, ecclesiastically, been found guilty of child abuse - and not yet been cleared of those charges - has meanwhile been mingling with children dressed as a priest? Is it possible that Bishop Morgan and Bishop Ballini now realized that they too have been deceived?

Writes this Kershaw: "...my client received a decree of dismissal from the clerical state...
The matter is currently subject to on-going recourse before the Holy See because my client was NOT in Martinique when the allegations made against him were FABRICATED by Archbishop Macaire. Moreover, this can be established by flight records, passport stamps, and the glaring omissions in the Decree. In effect, my client is dealing with the consequences of an agenda-driven kangaroo court. To suggest otherwise is a grave misrepresentation that unjustly damages my client's reputation and undermines the integrity of canonical justice."

This is an absolute joke. Moran received a decree of dismissal from the clerical state for child abuse. He then, a mere three months later, gets himself ordained by Archbishop Vigano (and Bishop Williamson?) - deceiving both - and consequently undermining the very canonical justice that Kershaw claims Weaver is doing - in order to dress up as a priest and freely mingle with children. Sorry, if anyone damaged Mr. Moran's reputation it was Moran himself. He caused this drama. He by-passed the "integrity of the canonical justice". He called himself a Resistance priest. And now he uses the names of Novus Order priests to defend his corner.

Will the real Kerry Moran stand up.

https://fli.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Speaker-Bio-Father-Linus-Clovis.pdf

Mr. Kershaw represented "Fr" Frank Phillips several years ago, who was removed as pastor at his parish after being accused of improper conduct with men. An independent review board later found that "Fr. Phillips [had] not violated any secular criminal, civil or canon law."

https://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/220113

https://mahoundsparadise.blogspot.com/2018/06/exclusive-text-of-fr-phillips-canon-law.html?m=1

LAW OFFICES 
Alan R. Kershaw, Ph.B., J.U.D., J.D.

Advocate of the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota Practicing in the Supreme Court of Cassation
Rome, 29th April 2018 
H.E . Blase J. Card. Cupich Archbishop of Chicago 835 North Rush Street Chicago, IL 60611-2030 U.S.A. 
Re: Rev. C. Frank Phillips, C.R. 
Your Eminence, 
Greetings in the Risen Christ! 
I have been retained by Fr. C. Frank Phillips, C.R., to defend him in the canonical forum. Attached herewith is a copy of the mandate of appointment. Should you require an original of the mandate, kindly let me know and I will have one delivered to your offices. 
Fr. Phillips has instructed me to contact you with regard to his current status in the Archdiocese of Chicago, and as the Founder of the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius. 
Before proceeding, indubitably it is salutary to recall certain recent, salient, and undisputable events. 
February 26, 2018 Fr. C. Frank Phillips was called by Fr. Dennis Lyle and Fr. Jeremy Thomas of the Priest Vicar Board, informing him that accusations of improper conduct had been made against him.
The afternoon of March 2nd Fr. Phillips, accompanied by his civil lawyer, met at the Chancery with Fr. Dennis Lyle, Fr. Jeremy Thomas, and Sr. Joan McGlinchey. Also present was Fr. Gene Szarek, C.R., in his capacity as Provincial General of the Congregation of the Resurrection. Fr. Phillips did not respond to the allegations, nor, as you know, was he legally obliged to.
Ten days later, on March 12th You announced your decision “to remove the faculties of Reverend C. Frank Phillips, C.R., which means he can no longer remain as the pastor of St. John Cantius and the superior of the Canons Regular”.
On March 16th you wrote to the “Parishioners, Staff and Friends of Saint John Cantius Parish”, informing them: “that I have had to withdraw Reverend C. Frank Phillips’ faculties to minister in the Archdiocese of Chicago”, and that you “took this step after learning of credible allegations of improper conduct involving adult men”.
The news of Fr. Phillips’ removal was soon in the local, State, national and international media: “In a statement to parishioners, Cardinal Blase Cupich explained that he had made the decision to « withdraw » Phillips after learning « of credible allegations of improper conduct involving adult men ». Anne Maselli, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said in an email that the allegations do not involve minors.” (Chicago Tribune, March 19, 2018; amongst others see also: Newsweek, March 19, 2018; Crux, March 20, 2018).
Within the time limits foreseen by canon law, on March 26th Fr. Phillips formally petitioned you to “either revoke or emend your decree” (can. 1734), and to “engage in a process of mediation which can resolve this issue without further canonical action” (can. 1733, §1).
The Saturday following Easter you met with the members of the Canons Regular, and during the course of the meeting, with reference to Fr. Phillips, you reportedly expressed to those present that the investigation of the diocese indicates that he is guilty. It is also my understanding, that you strongly recommended to the members of the Canons Regular to not give witness testimony before the Review Board.
On the 10th and 12th days of April the “Review Board”, or investigative panel constituted by the Superior of the Congregation of the Resurrection, Rev. Fr. Gene Szarek, interviewed Fr. Phillips’ detractors, and other persons, including Fr. Phillips, who was accompanied by his civil lawyer. Not surprisingly, Fr. Phillips denied the allegations, just as all innocent people refuse to confess to illicit actions they did not commit. To date, the Panel’s final report has not been presented, but it is forthcoming.
* * * * * 
As Your Eminence knows, canon 1717 CJC recites: “§1. Whenever an ordinary has knowledge, which at least seems true, of a delict, he is carefully to inquire personally or through another suitable person about the facts, circuмstances, and imputability, unless such an inquiry seems entirely superfluous. §2. Care must be taken so that the good name of anyone is not endangered from this investigation.” 
In your letter/decree of March 12, 2018 to Fr. Gene Szarek, C.R., you generically signify: “Considering the complaints of inappropriate conduct recently brought against the Reverend C. Frank Phillips, CR […] I hereby withdraw all of his faculties to engage in any ecclesiastical ministry in the Archdiocese of Chicago, and remove him of pastor of St. John Cantius Church”; therefore: “I will appoint a parish administrator until the matter currently under investigation is resolved”, and, “I will appoint someone to serve as superior of the Canons Regular on an interim basis”. 
Furthermore, you express the presumption “that an investigation will be undertaken by your office into the allegations made against Fr. Phillips and the exact nature of his conduct. I ask that you keep me apprised of your progress and the ultimate outcome of your inquiries”, and close with your “prayer for a swift resolution to this matter”. 
Also worthy of note is your appointment of Reverend Scott Thelander, SJC, also done on March 12th, “as administrator of St. John Cantius Parish and Superior ad interim”, and you convey your assurances “to visit with the Canons Regular as soon as I can to ask your suggestions and recommendations for moving forward with a permanent arrangement for the position of Superior”.

* * * * * 
Primo ictu oculi your decree, the singular administrative act dated March 12, 2018, is ipso jure null and void under canon law. Attentive study of the facts and related docuмents further confirms this conclusion. 
Canon 1717 explicitly mandates: « §1. Quoties Ordinarius notitiam, saltem veri similem, habet de delicto, caute inquirat ». 
Præprimis, in Fr. Phillips’ case there does not appear to be any canonical “delict” to speak of. 
Second, although there was no apparent or discernable « notitia delicti » you reportedly asserted to the members of the Canons Regular on Saturday, April 7th that the investigation of the diocese indicates that “Fr. Phillips is guilty”. If this corresponds to the truth, then a precipitous judgment was expressed, or better reiterated by your good self, albeit in absence of a delict and without a preventive « inquisitio circa facta et circuмstantia et circa imputabilitatem ». 
Canon 1717 also explicitly mandates: « §2. Cavendum est ne ex hac investigatione bonum cuiusquam nomen in discrimen vocetur ». 
Prescinding momentarily from whether you ordered an « investigatio prævia » into the allegations of non-existent « delicta », on March 12th you asked Fr. Gene Szarek, C.R., to “keep me apprised of your progress and the ultimate outcome of your inquiries”, on the presumption “that an investigation will be undertaken by your office into the allegations made against Fr. Phillips and the exact nature of his conduct”. Therefore, prior to the completion of any investigation, whether diocesan or by the religious order, you proceeded to inform the media of your decisions as set forth in your March 12th decree. This, Your Eminence, blatantly constitutes a violation of Fr. Phillips’ privacy and all rights relative to the preservation of his good name; a clear manifestation, in the minds of many Christifideles, of either an animus against Fr. Phillips, or a high level of suspicion and a low level of skepticism was present during the decision making phase, or, perhaps, a mixture of both; which reprovingly gives way to a reversed burden of proof, i.e. Fr. Phillips must prove his innocence rather than the reprobate accusers having to prove his culpability. To be clear, this is not simply an opinion, or a defense tactic of the undersigned patrocinium, but rather an easily verifiable current of valuation widely shared amongst the faithful, in particular by those who personally know Fr. Phillips, together with all those who are familiar with and participate in the good works of the Canons Regular SJC in Chicago, and elsewhere. 
Canon 193, §1, CJC clearly establishes: “A person cannot be removed from an office conferred for an indefinite period of time except for grave causes and according to the manner of proceeding defined by law”. 
Thereby, with regard to Fr. Phillips’ case, one legitimately queries: Where is the “grave cause”? And, why was the requisite “manner of proceeding defined by law” set aside, and not followed as prescribed by the Codex? 
Ad rem, given the facts outlined herein it is indubitable that your March 12th decree is irreparably vitiated sive in procedendo sive in decernendo. 
Ultimately, in the exercise of his priestly ministry Fr. Phillips has acted in accordance with canon 529, §§ 1-2, CJC, and has conducted himself in an exemplary fashion, reflecting the Magisterium and exhortations of Pope Francis; that is to be selfless and reach out to help others, regardless of their status, to be compassionate and always act with brotherly love especially towards those who find themselves in difficulty on the path of life. 
If Your Eminence, as Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Chicago, prior to giving the March 12th decree had conducted a preliminary investigation, prompting the restrictions, scilicet the canonical sanctions, imposed on Fr. Phillips, then it can only be valuated as superficial and incomplete. Hence, your decree is lacking factual foundation (Cfr. canons 48-51 CJC). 
What is more, the verbiage of your decree and other public writings appear contradictory, and unfounded in canon law. Hence, this perceived lack of clarity and linearity – also in reference to the erroneous application of the dictates of the prescribed canon law process - gives way to, and even further provokes profound confusion amongst the faithful, causing unnecessary scandal and division.


* * * * * 
In light of the arguments heretofore articulated sive in jure sive in facto, on behalf of Fr. Phillips and in defense of his person and interests, You are hereby respectfully petitioned to revoke your March 12th decree in its entirety and, to said effect, restore Fr. Phillips’ status quo ante as Pastor of St. John Cantius and Superior of the Canons Regular SJC. 
As a final resolution of the entire, baseless matter, this could prove persuasive to avoid litigation that potentially would involve the Archdiocese in the secular courts. 
Indubitably, Fr. Phillips has been egregiously defamed by his reprobate detractors, including those who have “jumped on the band wagon” ostensibly hoping to have found an opportunity for fraudulent monetary gain. 
The damage to Fr. Phillips’ reputation has indeed been compounded by those same wide reaching media reports which have caused and continue to consternation and astonishment amongst the Christifideles. Hence, it is left to Rev. Fr. Phillips to discern if and what further action should be taken to restore his good name. 
On this point, Fr. Phillips suggests and would appreciate drafting any eventual joint communication to the faithful in the Archdiocese, regarding the positive resolution of all contrasts and his status. 
However, should Your Eminence not deem the above arguments to carry sufficient weight for the reasonable and justifiable revocation of your March 12th decree, then by these presents Fr. Phillips makes formal hierarchical administrative recourse against your decree of March 12, 2018. 
In closing, I take the opportunity to quote the words of His Holiness, Pope Francis, expressed in his recent letter to the Chilean bishops, wherein he asked forgiveness, acknowledging “that I have made serious mistakes in the assessment and perception of the situation, especially because of the lack of truthful and balanced information”. 
From a professional perspective, and with legitima suspicione, I ask myself whether Your Eminence too has been misled by a deplorable “lack of truthful and balanced information”. Should this prove to be the case, then to the mind of Fr. Phillips’ supporters the moment to rectify matters must be seized immediately to underscore the fact that “zero tolerance” is not merely a one-way policy. 
With a prayer for a positive resolution of all issues, I look forward to your
reply.

In Domino addictissimus,

Alan R. Kershaw, R.R.Adv

Moran has stated he himself was a canon lawyer. Also this "lawyer" in the email sounds alot like Moran when he posted as "truthy"

If you believe Moran or anyone assisting him is pretending to be Kershaw, you should attempt to bring it to Kershaw's attention 

Hi

A Canon lawyer knows that before a cleric - who has been dismissed from the clerical state - can operate as a cleric again, he must first submit to the due process involving a Vatican investigation. The fact the Moran has ignored this due process, deceived two eminent bishops into ordaining him, and has been secretly doing Mass circuits among children, tells us that Moran has absolutely no regard for the Canonical system. It also tells us that we are dealing with a highly skilled conman.

That said, your suggestion about contacting Kershaw is a good one.

What does Moran currently offering the sacraments have to do with what he, and apparently the Canon lawyer representing him, claims is a unjust dismissal from the clerical state? The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church

My guess is, at this time, Moran is more concerned with clearing his name than any reintegration into what you call the "mainstream Church"

What does Moran currently offering the sacraments have to do with what he, and apparently the Canon lawyer representing him, claims is a unjust dismissal from the clerical state? The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church

My guess is, at this time, Moran is more concerned with clearing his name than any reintegration into what you call the "mainstream Church"

Under Canon LAW, a dismissed cleric is not allowed to act as a cleric. And he certainly is not allowed to get himself ordained. If the dismissal is unjust, then he will be re-instated. But he must first wait for the outcome of the investigation. That is the law of the Church.

You ask 'what does Moran currently offering the sacraments have to do with (it)?"  It has everything to do with it. He is not allowed to. What if he not innocent? There have been other accusations other than the bishop of Martinique. Moreover, innocent men do not go where they are considered dangerous. Only predators force the issue.

That is why there is every reason to suspect that Moran is not concerned with clearing his name but protecting his access to children. If he was genuine, he would have immediately started the canonical process and subjected himself to its conditions. He would not have acted in secret - hiding his identity and pretending to be a priest in good standing - and he would not have been upset that a father of children strongly objected to his deceptive methods and current unlawful status. He would not have deceived Archbishop Vigano and Bishop Williamson.