Back to Top

Verified Integrity of Professor Matthew

 

This summary of verifiable facts and evidence is enhanced by understanding the phenomenon of unlawful false defamation.  To learn to detect and counter the common deceptive methods of defamation, see the report:

“Exposing Unlawful False Defamation”

 

In the sphere of non-profit organizations and official institutions with humanitarian missions, especially for human rights and Justice, there is a counter-culture of groups with anti-humanitarian agendas, who routinely seek to discredit the institutions of good, always by false defamation, and usually by targeting leading individuals personally with false defamation attacks.

 

There are also groups doing good works who become corrupted by egotism and ambition, viewing more highly developed and successful institutions as unwanted “competition” despite merit and the potential for cooperation.

 

Then there are simply criminals who wish to extort an institution for its assumed or perceived wealth or resources, despite being a non-profit organization, attempting to coerce its officials by false defamation as threats or attacks.

 

In all three of those common situations, the primary target of false defamation is usually the Security Chief, as the defender.  By attempting to threaten or discredit the guardian, attackers want to weaken the defenses of the institution, hoping they can then get away with their crimes against it.

 

Professor Matthew accepted the reality of this adversity, knowingly and willingly, as one of his many personal sacrifices in accepting appointment by the IVU Founding Board of Trustees as the Chief Inspector General (Minister of State Security and Chief of Judiciary Security) for the intergovernmental institutions.

 

This short report briefly summarizes the verifiable facts and evidence proving the Verified Integrity of Professor Matthew, which disprove the most common points of false defamation sometimes attempted against him.

 

Internationally Protected Person

 

Based upon his official legal inter-governmental appointments as an officer of foreign governments and international organizations, he is an “Internationally Protected Person” under international law [1], with reciprocity under national laws of the United States [2] and the United Kingdom, thus enforceable throughout the British Commonwealth of 56 countries [3].

 

It is an international criminal offense to commit any “attempts to intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass”, or to “obstruct” the duties of an Internationally Protected Person, including by acts or threats of defamation [4].

 

To learn details of how false defamation of an IGO or Foreign Official is an international crime punishable by imprisonment, see the report:

“Defamation Against Officials as a Criminal Offense”

 

Facts and Law Verifying Professional Integrity

 

Fully Vetted in Good Standing – Claiming that he is allegedly “disqualified” or in any way “excluded” from practicing law, would be provably false:

 

As a requirement for becoming a Barrister and an intergovernmental official, Professor Matthew was thoroughly “vetted” on an international level, by a full review of his “professional background” and all “past business practices”.

 

In October 2013, an intergovernmental Panel of International Judges, and also a Panel of Governmental Officials, found as a matter of fact and law that he had never committed any “misconduct” nor “wrongdoing” in any situation, that any and all defamation to the contrary is proven false, and that his true professional record is entirely “clear” and wholly in “good standing”.

 

International Legal Practice – Claiming that he is allegedly “unauthorized” or otherwise “uncertified” to practice law, would be provably false:

 

By intergovernmental accreditation and establishment as a Barrister, he is thereby officially licensed and authorized to practice law worldwide [5], with an International Practicing Certificate.  He is regulated by the Code of Conduct for European Lawyers (2006) of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (Brussels, Belgium).

 

As a result of this license at the higher international level, Professor Matthew is authorized in the United States to practice international law, foreign law and general federal law nationwide as a foreign lawyer [6], and is authorized in the United Kingdom to practice law in matters of international corporate, transactional, financial or governmental law as a foreign lawyer [7].

 

Furthermore, under International Law he is authorized to practice law on all matters in all jurisdictions, with protected lawyer-client confidentiality [8] [9].  This authorization to practice law internationally is additionally officially recognized by the national laws of Russia [10] and Sweden [11].

 

Limited Role as Content Provider – Claiming some “puppet master” conspiracy theory that he supposedly “controls everything” in any one institution or all other related institutions, would be provably false:

 

Professor Matthew’s career has always been focused on providing research and writing of academic and technical documents, as his primary function strengthening institutions.  For this reason, he never manages nor controls general operations of any organization, but is always essentially a “content writer” and source of verifiable factual information.  He noticeably tries to remain simply “the guy in the library”, processing volumes of encyclopedias, historical documents and law books, and writing educational materials and effective working documents, to provide substance to the institutions which he supports.

 

Delivers Content Empowering Others – Claiming that he supposedly “owns” and “controls” institutions merely because they use or even rely on his research and written content which he contributed to them, would be provably false:

 

Professor Matthew categorically rejects the modernist practice of any organization being a “one man show”, and strictly refuses to allow any group to rely on him in such a manner.  He strongly believes in and advocates the importance of building true institutions, run by groups of people, mentoring successive generations of groups of people, with group governance based on a balance of powers.  When he provides work product of historical and legal content which an independent institution can rely on for multi-generational operations, he delivers that content as written materials, and then any further involvement is solely as a volunteer for its non-profit missions.

 

No Involvement in Use of Funds – Claiming that he is allegedly “taking peoples’ money” for anything, or supposedly promoting something “only for money” or “for his own benefit”, would be provably false:

 

He is not an owner nor beneficiary of any bank account related to any of the independent non-profit institutions which he supports, and cannot access nor receive any funds unless voluntarily given to him by democratic decision of their respective Boards of Directors.  Funds given to the institutions belong solely to the organizations and are used exclusively for the real costs of their humanitarian missions.  He uses the majority of his own personal income from outside independent contracting work to donate to the non-profit missions of the institutions.

 

No Assets nor Tax Obligations – Claiming that he is allegedly “hiding from” any taxation agency for any supposed tax debt or accumulated wealth, because he seemingly “won’t travel to” some country, would be provably false:

 

He does not own any personal property nor assets in any country, other than his clothes, professional working tools, and library of rare books.  Since his career in international law and diplomacy has required him to live outside the US throughout his adult life, and his personal income has always been well under the limit of the US Foreign Earned Income Exclusion [12], it is a legal fact that he cannot possibly owe any tax obligations whatsoever to the IRS, nor to any other country’s tax authority.

 

No Past Legal Liabilities Possible – Claiming that he is allegedly “hiding from” or “wanted by” any “authorities” for any implied criminal liability, because he seemingly “stays in” or supposedly “can’t travel to” some country, would be provably false:

 

Since 2009, Matthew renounced the world of commerce, thereafter working exclusively for non-profit or governmental institutions, thus owing nothing to anyone anywhere.  All possible Statutes of Limitations barring all liabilities (typically after 5 years) in all jurisdictions of his former commercial work have long since expired [13].  Therefore, as a legal fact, he cannot possibly have any past liabilities of any accusations of wrongdoing whatsoever, not from any part of the world.  He is not obligated to make the expense and effort of travel just to disprove false defamation.

 

The above verifiable facts, supported by evidence, conclusively prove that attempts at inflammatory defamation against Professor Matthew (and by implied extension against institutions he works for) are knowingly and intentionally false. 

 

For a detailed report disproving specific false accusations sometimes raised by criminals against Professor Matthew as an intergovernmental security official and anti-corruption lawyer, see the official report:

“Legal Good Standing of Professor Matthew”.

 


 

Source References of Evidence for this Topic

 

[1] United Nations, 1973 Convention on Internationally Protected Persons, Articles 1.1(b), 2.3.

[2] United States Code, Title 18, “Foreign Officials, Official Guests or Internationally Protected Persons”, Section 1116(4)(b), “18 USC 1116(4)(b)”.

[3] United Kingdom, Internationally Protected Persons Act (1978), Section 1(5)(b).

[4] United States Code, Title 18, “Protection of Foreign Officials and Internationally Protected Persons”, Section 112(b)(2), “18 USC 112(b)(2)”.

[5] United Nations, 1990 Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Article 16.

[6] American Bar Association (ABA), Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 5.5, 5.5(c), 5.5(c)(4), Official Comments #3, 14.

[7] Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), UK SRA Practice Framework Rules, Part 1, Article 3.4 Guidance Notes, Articles 6.1, 10.1(c), 10.2(b); UK SRA Handbook: Principles, Version 4 of 2012, Part 2, Articles 3.1(b)(v), 4.2(a)-(b).

[8] United Nations, 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 20(2), 23(1), 25(1), Articles 2, 19.

[9] United Nations, 1990 Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Preamble: Sections 9, 11, Articles 16, 21, Article 22.

[10] Russian Federation, Code of Civil Procedure, Chapter 5, Articles 52.3, 53.4-53.6.

[11] Kingdom of Sweden, Code of Judicial Procedure, Chapter 8, Sections 4, 9, 10.

[12] United States Code, Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, Section 911 (26 USC 911).

[13] United States Code, Title 18, “Offenses Not Capitol”, Section 3282(a), “18 USC 3282(a)”.

 


 

en English
X

You cannot copy content of this page