This condensed presentation of verifiable facts and evidence is greatly enhanced by understanding the phenomenon of unlawful false defamation. For a detailed exposé of the common deceptive methods widely used for defamation, and to learn how to detect them, see the following topic: “Exposing the Evils of False Defamation”.
This section focuses on specific false accusations sometimes raised against Prince Judge Matthew of Thebes, Grand Master of the Order of the Temple of Solomon. For detailed factual information on all general issues of legitimacy of Prince Judge Matthew, see the following topic: “Verified Integrity of the Prince Grand Master”.
The Grand Master’s full official name is legally “Prince Judge Matthew of Thebes”. It is entirely correct and legal under customary international law for a Prince to replace the private surname with a territorial designation  , which does not imply residence in any particular place  . This is also fully legal under international law for Judges  , who have a protected right to privacy of their surname for security against unlawful interference with Judiciary functions . Therefore, Matthew publicly works under the legitimate legal name of his true professional identity which he officially answers for with full lawful responsibility.
This summary presents proven verifiable facts, backed by concrete, detailed and voluminous legal evidence, which conclusively disprove the typical false defamation topics which are occasionally revived for various extortion attempts.
The true facts of Prince Judge Matthew’s career, even of the two isolated events which are misrepresented in false defamation against him, abundantly prove that he is not only in “good standing” in the legal profession, but is actually a leader and pioneer in upholding the rule of law and lawful rights, willing to aggressively oppose corruption and abuse of authority.
Moreover, the facts and evidence reveal that the few corrupt officials who manufactured those events, and the few people who misrepresent them for false defamation, themselves have openly committed serious crimes, much worse than the mere administrative technicalities they use as accusations against others.
Substantial evidence establishes that Judge Matthew has been persecuted as a “political dissident”, by methods known and proven to be routinely used by Western countries. A “dissident” is simply any person who happens to disagree with the domestic or foreign policies of the government, such as those widely described as “neo-colonialism”, “neo-imperialism” and “neo-feudalism” in violation of the rights of peoples and sovereign nations. Therefore, any person who advocates and works to uphold civil rights, human rights and international law is inherently at risk of being targeted as a political dissident, at any time.
The reality that rogue agencies of the US government do in fact persecute political dissidents, specifically by discrediting and legal harassment, is proven by evidence of the FBI “COINTELPRO” (counter-intelligence program)  which continues as an unofficial program  of routine methods  which were proven by a US Federal Court to be ongoing . The primary method is “legal harassment” with false testimony and fabrications for abuse of process leading to false defamation , to discredit any person who does not agree with current illegal policies which violate international law.
The American illegal program or methods are directly mirrored in the United Kingdom “CONTEST” program, revealing the connection to military intelligence. The UK program targets any political dissent with “grievances” about government violations of civil rights or human rights , often driven by “Defense Advisory Notices” from the military , resulting in secret “Control Orders” to “prevent, restrict or disrupt” the lawful activities of dissidents , often through legal harassment and false defamation.
The European Commission Directorate General for Justice Freedom and Security proved that the CONTEST program was uniformly implemented throughout the NATO alliances , which are led by the United States. The UN Human Rights Council condemned those proven methods as illegal political persecution of any person who “powerful entities do not like or agree with” .
The fact that Prince Judge Matthew was illegally persecuted as a political dissident does not mean that he has any real “problem with the government”. Such covert operations are unofficial, hiding in the shadows without supervision, and the circumstances indicate further criminal abuse by rogue individuals taking advantage of covert operations for personal gain. The facts also reveal that many other innocent and lawful people unrelated to Matthew have been routinely targeted in the same way.
Other government agencies, with much higher level officials, took serious actions vindicating Matthew by destroying the careers of many of the wrongdoers. Many of their cohorts remain flagged in national security databases and are being closely monitored. Every government agency has factions of “good guys” and factions of “bad guys”. Judge Matthew perfected and demonstrated his advanced “legal warfare” skills to win the active support of more “good guys”, and for the rest of his life remains fully prepared and even better positioned to do it again – not only for himself, but also for others, as he has done from time to time.
Many years ago, Matthew held an inactive merely “Associate” membership (from 2007) in a State Bar (USA), which was not a “license”, and was never used nor ever needed, because he has always separately held a foreign international license to practice law.
While working full-time as a lawyer for national security agencies of foreign countries, he allowed his name to be used by an international law firm only as a figurehead spokesman. (He was sometimes referred to as a “founder” only because he established the earlier separate government contracting security firm which licensed its brand name acronym to the law firm, and the “legal security” and “legal aspects of national security” philosophy of the security firm inspired creation of the law firm.)
Evidence of official registrations with the governmental National Lawyers Association (NLA) of Panama (August 2006) proved that Matthew was never an owner, partner nor manager of that law firm, only an independent appointed figurehead spokesman, who simply facilitated registering its own USA subsidiary (as lawyers routinely do for many clients).
A subdivision of the US Department of Commerce (DOC), engaging in corruption by illegally representing its own paid “clients” (the FBI called that “bribery”), attempted to force two such “clients” on the law firm (December 2007), which rejected both of them for fraud and forged documents. As unlawful retaliation, DOC began highly aggressive criminal extortion enforced by a campaign of public false defamation against the law firm, primarily targeting Matthew personally, and including criminal witness intimidation against third parties. This overt organized crime activity was conducted under false colour of official authority.
A LinkedIn profile of the Ring Leader of the DOC criminal operation (screen captured 2013) evidenced that he later admitted to being a veteran US Army Intelligence officer specializing in information warfare and psychological operations by aggressive propaganda in public communications, with advanced computer network accessing skills.
Immediately after explicit threats of illegal sabotage by DOC, the law firm’s private servers for its website and client database were shut down, interrupting all work and creating discontent among its clients. Matthew filed a 1st FBI Criminal Complaint with the “IC3” division (12 January 2008), which resulted in local police causing the servers to be restored in Florida, and yielded evidence indicating the servers were shut down “at the request of a government agency” such as DOC abusing and exceeding its authority.
Matthew filed a 2nd FBI Criminal Complaint directly against DOC (12 March 2008) with evidence, which was joined by two victim-witnesses illegally targeted by DOC extortion and false defamation.
Matthew filed a Formal Complaint & Request “in Defense of the Legal Profession” (13 March 2008), notifying both the American Bar Association (ABA) and State Bar of “aggressive abuse of official authority through a relentless campaign of governmental… extortion, blackmail, [and] racketeering” as organized crime and corruption from DOC, against a law firm and himself as a foreign international lawyer, without jurisdiction or authority. The complaint demonstrated that this was an assault against the legal profession as a whole. The official FBI complaint against DOC with evidence was attached. Both the ABA and State Bar did nothing.
Matthew filed a 3rd FBI Criminal Complaint (03 December 2008) with evidence of continuing violations, joined by another two victim-witnesses from an independent licensed financial services institution targeted by DOC extortion and defamation. The FBI complaints were referred upward to the US Office of Inspector General of the DOC in Washington DC, and later to the Secretary of Commerce at the White House Level, but the FBI did nothing to intervene to stop the escalating organized crime attacks against the law firm and others.
Matthew filed a 4th Federal Criminal Complaint with the US Department of State (08 December 2008), with evidence that the DOC racketeering ring was illegally abusing US Embassy functions to extend the reach of its organized crime in violation of international law. It proved flagrant violations of the UN Convention on Diplomatic Relations, UN Convention on Consular Relations, UN Basic Declaration on the Role of Lawyers, and UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It also proved that military methods officially recognized as “information warfare” were being used as illegal persecution.
As illegal retaliation for Matthew’s multiple Federal Criminal Complaints against DOC, the DOC Ring Leader used stolen client files from the previously hijacked law firm servers to recruit two of the law firm’s clients, and instigated them to file false complaints personally against Matthew with the State Bar. Both were selected as the only two disgruntled clients, because they had breached their binding Contract with the law firm by committing their own fraud in their projects, and owed substantial penalties to the firm under the legal Contract.
Proving the corrupt and unlawful motivation behind the false complaints, the clients never sued the law firm in a Court of Law because they knew they would lose and be ordered to pay the Contract penalties. Proving the entirely political motivations from DOC, focused only on persecuting Matthew personally, the clients never even filed a complaint against the actual license of the law firm itself, which both clients in fact had been given copies of.
The State Bar allowed both complaints, despite the facts that it had no jurisdiction over the foreign law firm, that the firm was not owned by Matthew, that he had never been assigned to work on the client projects, that his non-active non-license mere “associate” status was never used because he holds valid foreign licenses, and that neither of the clients were connected with that State.
The Bar completely ignored the fact that Matthew immediately provided detailed documentary evidence proving literally every single point in the complaints to be knowingly false. It refused to consider even the same evidence which was accepted by the FBI. It also willfully disregarded the 4 Criminal Complaints filed by Matthew with the FBI against DOC, and ignored the fact that a full year previously Matthew had notified the Bar in writing of the DOC’s written criminal extortion threats to falsely manufacture precisely this situation.
Email evidence (14-15 December 2008) between the Bar “Investigator” and the DOC Ring Leader proved that (1) the Bar admitted that “Associated Members” are not a license (proving no jurisdiction and impossibility to be “disbarred” from a non-license), (2) the DOC Legal Department would “coordinate with the Assistant Bar Council overseeing this matter” (proving corrupt unlawful interference with no jurisdiction nor authority), and (3) DOC admitted it provided “assistance to identify involved parties” and “passed on [State Bar] information to our clients” (proving corrupt bribery of DOC illegally having “clients”, and that the alleged complaints were illegally orchestrated by DOC, with no jurisdiction nor authority).
That “smoking gun” evidence conclusively proves that the entire State Bar process was politically motivated, driven by corruption, intentionally false, and artificially manufactured. It proves the willful and flagrant violation of fundamental Constitutional rights of due process of law, and aggressive violation of basic human rights to practice one’s profession, all by criminally exceeding the limited jurisdiction, restricted authorities and narrow functions of both the DOC and State Bar as government agencies.
It proves highly illegal conflict of interest, as DOC was already under investigation by both the FBI and State Department, and thus could not possibly be allowed to manage (“coordinate”) an external State Bar process against the same lawyer who filed multiple criminal complaints against it. It also proves that the State Bar (and by extension possibly all government regulation of the American Legal Profession as a whole) is in fact criminally corrupt to its very core.
White House level federal investigations against DOC intensified, and the FBI had referred its investigation to a specialized “Public Corruption” (“C-14”) Division. However, as there was still no direct intervention by law enforcement for any relief, the political persecution by DOC accelerated, and the corrupt State Bar process continued. In further illegal retaliation for the 4 Federal Criminal Complaints filed by Matthew against DOC, throughout the year 2009, a group of state-sponsored criminal perpetrators waged a full-time campaign of false unlawful defamation on the Internet.
The State Bar abundantly demonstrated the flagrant disregard for all law, facts, evidence, truth, and any basic fairness, exacerbated by its disdain for the reality and validity of all foreign licenses of older and even larger countries. Matthew was thus rightfully and adamantly determined to resign in protest, in condemnation of the corrupt regulation of the American Legal Profession as a whole. As a veteran national security lawyer, he also received offers of highly attractive opportunities from foreign governments, which would require terminating any status from the USA that could be used for political control by extortion (precisely what was already happening).
As a technicality, however, the State Bar refused to accept his insistent resignation while the false corrupt process was still pending, without extracting at least some limited “admissions” in a “voluntary revocation” settlement form, with certain standardized mandatory text. This policy was a major violation of international law, specifically the absolute prohibition in the UN Declaration of Human Rights that “No one may be compelled to belong to an association” (Article 20(2)) , and the strict requirement in the UN Principles on the Role of Lawyers that “professional associations of lawyers” must uphold the “human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized by national and international law” (Article 9) .
Thoroughly disgusted with what he condemned as “the hypocrisy and rampant lawlessness of the political puppet” State Bar, Matthew signed a Voluntary Resignation form (November 2009), and happily moved on to work with a new government which respects human rights and the rule of law.
In the Voluntary Resignation, he essentially “admitted” only an innocent truth – that the law firm “did not give a refund” to the clients. That isolated fact, artificially out of context, was not permitted to be clarified by any of the proven mitigating facts: The State Bar did not allow to mention the facts that Matthew did not own the firm, was not assigned to work on the client projects, did not personally receive any of the money, nor that any “refund” was not his to give. It was not allowed to state the facts that under a binding legal Contract no refund was owed, nor that the clients breached that Contract and owed substantial penalties.
As a legal fact, the rightful denial of a refund by the firm was wholly justified, entirely lawful and ethical, and even fully enforceable in a Court of Law. The so-called “admission” was thus harmless, could not even be considered any misconduct, and did not admit any actual wrongdoing whatsoever.
The State Bar publishing a notice of the Voluntary Resignation online fueled a greatly intensified defamation campaign. The central Blog by the DOC Ring Leader driving the wider campaign posted a preview copy of the notice online 2 days before the State Bar actually published it, further proving that the entire State Bar process was manufactured and controlled by DOC in retaliation for the multiple Federal Criminal Complaints against it.
Everything posted was a “military grade” level of deception, false propaganda, information warfare, and psychological warfare, all driven by aggressive and inflammatory lies. This large-scale campaign included even manufacturing forged documents by identity theft, falsely impersonating third parties, creating fake “lawyer review” websites, and a full-time fully-staffed Blog operation posting inflammatory lies 24/7. All postings on diverse websites and forums were consistently proven to be coordinated among the same group by the DOC Ring Leader.
Matthew filed an FBI Criminal Complaint against the DOC Ring Leader (31 January 2010) with a specialized “NW3C” division of the FBI. In retaliation for the lawful complaint, the defamation Blog began illegally using the trademark logos of NW3C and a related FBI government contractor, to give the defamation false credibility by false colour of authority. Matthew filed another FBI Criminal Complaint (03 February 2010) for illegally impersonating federal agents to fraudulently misrepresent the source of the defamation campaign. This finally caused the FBI to strongly support intervention for removal of the campaign from all legitimate and lawful online sites.
The flagship inflammatory accusation in the aggressive campaign of unlawful false defamation by DOC, naturally, was the claim that Matthew was supposedly “disbarred”, “lost his license” and “admitted” wrongdoing. This is patently false, and intentionally misleading, portrayed in a false light out of context only for criminal purposes:
The non-active non-license mere “associate” status was never needed nor used, was not any “license” which could be “lost”, and did not constitute being “at bar” such that any lawyer could be “disbarred”. The primary “charge” brought against Matthew was actually “Unauthorized Practice of Law” without a license (citing State Bar “Rule 5.5”), proving that it was in fact not a license, and proving that the State Bar wrongfully and illegally ignored official documentary evidence of his valid foreign licenses. The much touted but very limited “admission” required in the Voluntary Resignation was only of the law firm’s innocent exercise of a lawful right, admitting no wrongdoing whatsoever.
Matthew developed a new legal technology for penetrating the statutory immunities of Internet service providers for mere “defamation”, focusing on the underlying criminal offenses which are furthered by defamation, thereby making the content itself highly illegal “federal contraband” which must be deleted if the provider is to avoid criminal liabilities. (In private circles of civil rights activists Matthew was hailed as a “folk hero” for inventing a new “legal weapon” for defending the innocent against the primary form of persecution.)
The robust legal departments of 8 major Internet service providers (including Google Blogger, Scribd, America Online Propeller, Twitter and Tumbler), despite resistant and defiant corporate policies asserting immunities for unlawful content, all overwhelmingly agreed with the legal evidence of severe criminality. During a brief period of less than one week (February 2010), each provider shut down all accounts and banned all users of the state-sponsored defamation group, each within a record 24 hours of receiving the legal notices from Matthew.
A Special Agent in the Office of Inspector General in Washington DC reported to Matthew (January 2009) that an assigned “agent who is working the investigation [is] a very higher level agent… but it does take time, because he runs another division of agents.”
The DOC Ring Leader was initially moved out of DOC (February 2009) to terminate the underlying criminal extortion racketeering operation.
A Special Investigator in the US Department of State reported to Matthew (August 2010) that the Ring Leader and others from DOC were flagged in federal databases, and that the criminal complaints were referred to a Special Agent of the State Department.
A Special Agent from the State Department reported to Matthew (December 2010) that there was an active “national security investigation” against the DOC Ring Leader. He provided information which indicated that Matthew had been targeted by the criminals as part of a wider and unrelated agenda, that the Ring Leader was conducting covert information warfare attacks on political dissidents consistent with his prior counter-intelligence career, and that such illegal covert operation itself came to be further abused by certain individuals as an organized crime and racketeering ring.
He further reported that “[Ring Leader’s] current position is on hold right now, pending this investigation”, such that he was essentially unemployed for a full 1-2 years throughout the “national security investigation” which was driven by Matthew’s legal work and evidence. The Special Agent added “That’s why we’re here – to protect our workspace. We’re going to make sure that we take care of what we’ve got to do over here.”
Eventually, the Ring Leader was permanently banned (in June 2011) from ever working for the DOC or anything related to the State Department, barred from any government work in both Washington DC and New York, given a severe demotion to the lowest possible level of government staff, and assigned to an office in his small home town, in the Federal Highway Administration of the US Department of Transportation.
It is apparent that he was placed in the most harmless position of the most irrelevant agency that the government could think of. For all practical purposes, he was effectively buried in a “department of bridges and tunnels”, in a small town that has no bridges and no tunnels. This was clearly the American administrative equivalent of banishing him to exile “in Siberia”.
The Ring Leader was finally squeezed out of the last semblance of even the lowest level of government employment (by September 2011), leaving the Federal Highway Administration. This left him unemployable and barred from any form of government employment in the future. He has never recovered, abandoned all his social media profiles, and never shows himself in public ever since. Reportedly, many others at various levels of the DOC suffered the same fate, all as a direct result of Judge Matthew’s legal process against their organized crime ring.
An administrative notice from a State Banking Agency (May 2013) was falsely attributed to Prince Matthew, indirectly as a secondary party, again only by his former association with the same licensed law firm. (That firm in fact never had any single complaint filed against its own valid law license nor its separate financial services license). The facts of the case established only that a Client of the law firm (from years earlier in 2008) had misrepresented the law firm’s documents to the Client’s own investor. Those documents were in fact entirely truthful, gave full and transparent disclosures, and directly contradicted the Client’s misrepresentations.
The Agency’s Public Notice stated that the Client supposedly “forwarded to… investors a purported agreement by [the law firm] to finance the [Client] project, leading investors to believe that the [Client] project would proceed with [financing].” It alleged that the Client “failed to disclose… any risk factors related to the investment in general”. That statement is patently false, as the document was not any “agreement” (meaning a contract), but merely a “Preliminary Approval” accepting the client to hire services, and was clearly labeled as a “Letter of Intent (LOI), conditional upon completion of [a] preparation process”.
That Conditional Letter of Intent, repeating that it was “conditional”, explicitly referred to an “Agreement for Preparation of Investment Project” (Contract). The investor thus had actual notice of the Contract, which was limited to the “Preparation Process”, disclaiming that only “support services for… [a separate] financing process… are by practical necessity conditional and dependent upon the full cooperation of Client” (Section 2.8), and were only on a “success fee basis” (Section 3.3). It gave clear notice and disclaimer of 4 major risk factors of non-cooperation of a Client (Sections 4.7-4.10).
The Contract (which the investor had written notice of and thus was obligated to read) prominently disclosed that “funding sources… must remain independent… It is prohibited for [law firm] to guarantee to control, or promise to obtain guarantees… or intentions of independent funding sources.” (Section 5.3) It specifically disclaimed: “Misrepresentation Prohibited – Client shall not make any further claims, promises or guarantees to any third parties in relation to the services… and shall not add any embellishment, expansion or extension to [the law firm’s] official statements.” (Section 4.12).
Additionally, the law firm’s website always featured a public disclaimer on every page to prevent Client misrepresentation, that “no person shall take action in reliance upon statements of any such independent third parties”, and also that all materials were “not a solicitation for the purchase or sale of any securities, nor… investment funds”.
For over 100 years, in every Court in every jurisdiction worldwide, exactly such disclaimers have consistently been upheld to be truthful, transparent, effective, and fully legally binding as proving no wrongdoing. For the Agency to willfully ignore those same repeated written disclaimers, demonstrates its own flagrant disregard for all law and rights, and its own corrupt disdain for facts proven by evidence.
The alleged “finding” in the Agency’s Order Imposing Fine was only that Matthew “materially aided” a violation committed independently by the Client of the law firm. However, the Order never specified any particular action which was supposedly a violation. The alleged “conduct” was vaguely described only as a long standard list of routine potential activities including “or indirectly… omitting to state a material fact necessary” to have prevented the client’s own fraud. However, not one single statement was even alleged to be false, and the Agency willfully ignored multiple written and even public disclaimers proving that no material fact was omitted at all.
The above facts documented by evidence conclusively prove that everything from the law firm was truthful, non-misleading, and fully transparent with risk factors and prominent disclaimers, and that the law firm had proactively done everything possible to prevent such misrepresentations by any of its Clients. By all established principles of law, ethics and common sense, nothing more could possibly have been done to prevent a Client from committing fraud independently, even directly contradicting the law firm’s truthful written statements.
The State Statutes governing that Agency impose a strict Statute of Limitations, that “no person may bring an action more than two years from the date when [any] misrepresentation… should have been discovered” (Section 36-b-29-f). The law firm’s Contract for the services, signed in November 2008, specified the Contract period as “12 months from the moment of its signing” (Section 6.8). This proves that any alleged misrepresentation “should have been discovered” in November 2009 when results from the Contract were expected. (The Contract had been breached by the Client, who failed to provide 66% of the necessary materials on its own project for the law firm to work on.)
Those facts prove that the Statute of Limitations had expired, by force of law, in November 2011, a full 17 months before the Agency even purported to “investigate” (March 2012). That binding legal fact of the expired Statute of Limitations proves that the Agency had no jurisdiction, no legal basis, and no authority whatsoever to bring any accusations.
The Order falsely stated that “Respondent received” the Agency’s “Notice of Right to Hearing”, and falsely stated that he “failed to request a hearing”. The Agency had actual knowledge of the fact that no such notice could possibly have been “received”, because that was an invalid address of an old closed office, which was never even associated with Matthew as an individual.
The former law firm had delivered an email reply to the State (01 March 2012) of the fact that Matthew had resigned from the firm “since February 2009”, and that the firm was not a contact for him. The Agency’s own preliminary Order & Notice admitted that he was only associated with the law firm “until February 2009” (Section II(10)), while the Wayback Machine proves that the law firm website did not list the London address until more than a year later (April 2010), proving that it was never a “last known address” for Matthew. At least two years before the Agency’s false process, the law firm’s website (2011) had removed that address from its Contact page, which publicly stated that “All offices are closed”, and that “Private offices will be disclosed” only upon a legitimate request. Online public records of the State of Delaware gave notice that the law firm was dissolved (before March 2012) proving that all its former office addresses were invalid.
The Agency made no effort to determine – and not once even requested – any valid address to send legal notice to either the law firm or Matthew. By relying on arbitrary self-justification to willfully prevent any actual notice, to intentionally deprive of due process of law, the Agency knowingly violated its own State Statutes (Section 42-a-1-201-33, Section 42-a-1-202, Section 36-b-33-h).
Its own Order admitted that “a final decision” was made “Without further proceedings or notice”, proving that by the Agency’s intentional deception, Prince Matthew was completely deprived of the basic right to a hearing and lawful due process to prove the vague and unproven allegations false.
The Agency’s publication of purported notices about Matthew on the Internet is illegal as a violation of its own State Statutes (Section 36-b-27-a, imposing requirements of Chapter 54, Section 4-18-a) limiting that “all written orders… shall [be made] available for public inspection… [only] to the extent required by the Freedom of Information Act.” This proves yet another flagrant violation of all law and rights by the Agency, with no lawful basis nor authority to do so.
Immediately after seeing the Agency’s false notice on the Internet, Matthew exercised his rights by submitting binding legal “discovery” requests, demanding the Agency produce any evidence which could substantiate the vague allegations against him. Three separate mandatory discovery requests (30 May, 03 June and 04 June 2012) were all disregarded, in flagrant violation of the State Statutes (Section 36-b-27-a, imposing requirements of Chapter 54, Section 4-177-c), under which the Agency is obligated by law to provide all “relevant and material records” in any “contested case”. The Agency’s unlawful denial of response to multiple valid discovery requests, and illegal failure to provide any actual discovery, conclusively proves that it had no evidence of any alleged wrongdoing by Matthew whatsoever.
Prince Matthew filed a “Petition for Reconsideration & Rescinding of Orders” (07 June 2013), giving the Agency direct legal notice, with full legal evidence, of the fundamental illegality of the actions and resulting false publication. The Petition and all evidence was off-handedly dismissed, with willful disregard for all law, facts and evidence which it proved, accompanied by informal comments of nationalist bigotry and discriminatory prejudice against Matthew’s professional work with foreign governments and foreign law enforcement agencies. This proves that the aggressively corrupt and illegal abuses of false process were entirely politically motivated.
Compelling evidence links the Banking Agency’s false process with the previous false process of the State Bar Association: The only trace of mistakenly associating Matthew with the invalid London address used by the Agency originated from documents of the corrupt State Bar process which was proven to be in retaliation for multiple federal criminal complaints against the corrupt Department of Commerce.
The political motivations of the Agency were thus apparently provoked by the manufactured and inflammatory State Bar notice on the Internet. The wrongful use of the corrupt State Bar settlement for any other purpose knowingly violates the binding legal limitation stated in the Voluntary Resignation, that “this Affidavit shall not be deemed an admission in any proceeding” (Section 3), and also violates that State’s Supreme Court Rules (Part 6, Section IV, Paragraphs 13-28).
The politically motivated lawlessness of both the State Bar and the Banking Agency remains the subject of Judge Matthew’s ongoing cooperation with relevant federal law enforcement agencies, national security agencies, and the international Judiciary. Serious criminal charges continue to be prepared against all who participated in those and all related and derivative violations of law and rights.
Any individuals or officials attempting to use or advance the above false claims against Matthew will be prosecuted for their own violations, for “conspiracy against rights” (18 USC 241), “aiding and abetting” (18 USC 2(a)), and also as an “accessory after the fact” to (18 USC 3), a long list of major crimes in retaliation for and including the original organized crime ring which Judge Matthew filed multiple criminal complaints against. All persons using the above as defamation thereby implicate themselves in numerous major crimes, carrying decades of prison sentences mandated for each person.
Prince Matthew was thoroughly “vetted” on an international and high governmental level to become a Judge. In October 2013 (4 years after the corrupt State Bar persecution, and 5 months after the illegal State Banking Agency persecution), a Panel of International Judges from an International Judiciary Bar Association, and also a Panel of Governmental Officials from a Ministry of Justice, found as a matter of fact and law that he had never committed any “misconduct” nor “wrongdoing” in any situation. This conclusively proves that his professional record is “clear”, and that he is in “good standing” in the legal profession.
By government accreditation and registration as an “International Judge Advocate” (as “Advocate” means a lawyer), he is thereby additionally licensed and authorized to practice law worldwide  He is regulated by the Code of Conduct for European Lawyers (2006) of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (Brussels, Belgium).
Judge Matthew remains authorized in the United States to practice international law, foreign law and general federal law nationwide , and is authorized in the United Kingdom to practice law in matters of international corporate, commercial, transactional, financial or governmental law as a foreign lawyer . Furthermore, under International Law he is authorized to practice law on all matters in all jurisdictions, with protected lawyer-client confidentiality .
 Official Website of the British Monarchy, The Current Royal Family: The Royal Family Name, Royal.gov.uk, The Royal Household (2015).
 Official Website of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, A Working Day in the Life of Flight Lieutenant Wales, Clarence House (20 November 2012), “The Duke… who is known in his Royal Air Force working life as Flight Lieutenant Wales”.
 Patrick Montague-Smith, Debrett’s Correct Form, 1st Edition, Kelly’s Directories, London (1970); Debrett’s Handbook, Debrett’s Peerage Ltd., London (2014); Debretts.com (online), “Essential Guide to the Peerage: Teritorial Designations of Peerage”.
 Valentine Heywood, British Titles: The Use and Misuse of the Titles of Peers and Commoners, 1st Edition, A and C Black Publishers (1951), “The ‘of’ in Peerages”.
 Oxon, Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities, 4th Edition, Oxford University Press (2012), pp.19-20.
 Practice Briefing, Addressing Members of the Judiciary, New Zealand Law Society, Wellington (January 2014), pp.1-2.
 United Nations, Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, General Assembly Resolutions 40/32 and 40/146 (1985), Articles 1, 2, 4.
 Allan M. Jalon, A Break-In to End All Break-Ins: 1971 Stolen FBI Files Exposed Government’s Domestic Spying Program, Los Angeles Times, 08 March 2006.
 Ward Churchill & Jim Vander Wall, The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI’s Secret Wars Against Domestic Dissent, South End Press, Boston (1990), pp.xii, 303.
 Tim Weiner, Enemies: A History of the FBI, Random House, New York (2012).
 Bud & Ruth Schultz, The Price of Dissent: Testimonies to Political Repression in America, University of California Press (2001).
 Brian Glick, War at Home: Covert Action Against US Activists and What We Can Do About It, South End Press, Boston (1989); Ward Churchill, Agents of Repression: The FBI’s Secret Wars, South End Press, Boston (2002).
 UK Prime Minister & Home Secretary, The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering International Terrorism, HM Government, March 2009, pp.14, 80, 83, p.44.
 Defense Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee, Defense Advisory Notice System (DA-Notice System), Official Website (www.dnotice.org.uk), “Home” page, as of January 2014.
 UK Prime Minister & Home Secretary, The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering International Terrorism, HM Government, March 2009, pp.67, 69.
 European Commission Directorate General for Justice Freedom and Security, Acquis of the European Union, Section: “Terrorism”, October 2009, pp.34-35.
 Frank La Rue, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, UN Human Rights Council, A/HRC/17/27 of 16 May 2011, Summary, Articles 26, 34.
 United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, General Assembly Resolution 217-A(III) (1948), Article 20(2).
 United Nations, Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, 8th UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime (1990), Article 9.
 United Nations, Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, 8th UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime (1990), Article 16.
 American Bar Association (ABA), Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 5.5, 5.5(c), 5.5(c)(4), Official Comments #3, 14.
 Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), SRA Principles, Part 2, Articles 4.2(a)-(b); SRA Practice Framework Rules, Part 1, Articles 3.4, 6.1(a), Part 2, Articles 10.1(c), 10.2(b).
 United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, General Assembly Resolution 217-A(III) (1948), Articles 20(2), 23(1), 25(1), Articles 2, 19; UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, 8th UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime (1990), Preamble: Sections 9, 11, Articles 16, 21, Article 22.
You cannot copy content of this page