Verified Integrity of the Prince Grand Master Facts & Evidence Countering the Typical Agenda of False Defamation

This presentation of verifiable facts, backed by 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”.

 

The modern era still carries reflections and revivals of other traditions which were the historical sworn enemies of the original Knights Templar. Some are satanic groups who deceptively lay false claim to the Templar heritage through pseudo-historical manipulations of mythology. Others are secret societies with anti-humanitarian agendas who view all genuine knightly Orders dedicated to good as unwanted interference. There are also groups of cultural Templars who are seduced by egotism or elitism, and view all other groups as unwanted “competition” regardless of merit and potential for cooperation. Then there are simply petty criminals who wish to extort an institution for its assumed or perceived wealth or resources despite being a non-profit organization.

For these reasons, it is expected that the Order of the Temple of Solomon will sometimes be targeted by false defamation, from those who seek to promote their own private interests through violating the rights of others. Following the historical patterns and modus operandi of evil-doers, it is also expected that defamation will most frequently target the Grand Master personally, as a misguided strategy to somehow influence the Order. Prince Judge Matthew accepted this reality, knowingly and willingly, as one of his many personal sacrifices in accepting election and installation as the Grand Master for the fully restored Templar Order.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) wrote: “Slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; ere long she shall appear to vindicate thee.” Likewise, President Abraham Lincoln (ca. 1861) said: “Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.”

Judge Matthew did not “purchase” his Princely title, and he does not view it as a mere “title” nor some personal “status”, but rather a heavy responsibility to uphold a venerable historical institution. It was earned for merit by much delivered substance of great cultural value, through laborious effort over an extended time. The title itself is not dependent upon the legalized Royal House which officially recognized it, but rather is inherent in the current juridical and canonical status of the Templar Order in its own right, under customary international law [1], as a result of intensive restoration to perfect and even surpass its original authorities. Prince Matthew later procured a third party grant donated to the charitable works of the Royal House from an independent institution, just as he has done for many non-profit organizations who had no titles to give him.

Prince Matthew became a Judge not by ambition, but by the persistent request of government officials in leading countries of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) block of countries (comprising up to 80% of the UN General Assembly), who insistently desired his expertise to help restore the principles of human rights, national sovereignty and the rule of law. In 2013, he passed a Bar Exam of an International Judiciary Bar Association, and was governmentally accredited and registered with a Ministry of Justice, authorized to preside in government Courts of Law and Courts of international Justice. He is registered as “on call” to adjudicate any cases assigned to him, and otherwise works “part time” in Judiciary Administration.

Based upon his accredited registration documents as an International Judge Advocate, he holds full Judiciary authority of international law [2] [3], with supremacy over national authorities [4] [5], regardless of “recognition” by any particular country [6], with strict protection as a Judiciary official [7] which is binding upon all countries [8] [9], and is thus an “Internationally Protected Person” under national laws of the United States [10] with reciprocity in the United Kingdom [11].

As a requirement for becoming a Judge, Matthew was thoroughly “vetted” on an international and high governmental level, by a full review of his “professional background” and all “past business practices”. This proves that 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, that any and all defamation to the contrary is proven false, and that his record is entirely “clear” and wholly in “good standing”.

The Grand Master’s full official name is legally “Prince Judge Matthew of Thebes”:

Under customary international law, Princes officially had no surname at all until 1917, when the name of the House or Dynasty became the surname. Since 1947 for formal purposes of official records such as military service, the territorial designation (“of [Place]”) is used in place of a surname. [12] [13] “The territorial designation is usually a description of the place with which the peer… has a connection”, and does not mean that the person actually lives there [14]. Traditionally the historical name of the place is used (not its modern name), and similar to a “victory title”, the designation is often the place of the person’s most significant accomplishment [15].

Judges are also entitled to use only their forename after the prenominal title, or to use a territorial designation as the official surname [16]. In Commonwealth countries, “it is not correct to refer to Judges by their full names”, and even in “written address… the use of Judges’ surnames in the salutation is optional” [17]. By force of international law, Judges have a protected absolute right to privacy of their surname for security against unlawful interference with their official Judiciary functions by personal threats or harassment [18].

As part of his vetting to become a government accredited International Judge, a medical and psychological evaluation and clearance was also required. A team of three neuropsychiatrists with a government International Hospital, led by a Ministry of Health official, certified a “diagnosis” strongly and favourably supporting his Judiciary status: Matthew has “high functioning Autism” called “Asperger’s” [19], to a degree of 85%, such that 15% capacity allows him to overcome limitations to give the appearance of normal social functioning [20] [21].

The official evaluation concluded that with an “Autistic brain”, Judge Matthew “is wholly incapable of any non-factual creativity, incapable of conceiving, processing, accepting, emulating or expressing any fiction, and otherwise fundamentally unable to create or deal with any non-logical or false ideas.” It confirmed “compulsive behaviour” of “obsessively collecting and processing factual information… constantly collecting, analyzing, correlating, and assimilating academic and technical factual information. … Therefore, as a person, his very existence is wholly dedicated to obsessive adherence to truthful and factual information in full technical detail.” (Citing DSM IV, 299.99) [22]

As a result of this immutable condition, Prince Judge Matthew’s career has always been confined to providing research and writing of academic and technical documents, as his essential function of value to society. For this reason, he never manages operations of any organization, but is always purely a “content writer” and source of verifiable factual information. He is simply “the guy in the library”, processing thousands of pages of encyclopedias, history and law books, and writing educational materials and effective working documents, to provide substance to the institutions which he supports.

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 [23], 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.

He is not a signatory of any bank account related to the Order of the Temple of Solomon nor any of the independent non-profit institutions which it supports and its members volunteer for, 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 their humanitarian missions. Prince Matthew uses the majority of his own personal income from outside independent contracting work to donate to the missions of the Templar Order, and to other independent non-profit institutions which he supports.

In February 2009, Matthew took monastic vows, and wholly renounced and rejected the world of commerce as incompatible with his own true calling. Ever since, he refuses to be an owner, shareholder, director, or manager of any commercial business or services firm. He can only be hired as an independent contractor providing historical or legal content, or adjudicating Judiciary cases assigned to him. He can only be paid occasional stipends for contract work, residual royalties on his delivered content, or grants for his personal non-profit activities of historical preservation and human rights advocacy.

Since 2009, while Matthew was working exclusively as a private independent contractor in the world of non-profit institutions, all possible Statutes of Limitations (typically 3-6 years) in all jurisdictions of his former work have expired. Therefore, as an absolute legal fact, there cannot possibly be any outstanding liabilities nor any legal grounds for any allegations nor accusations of any form whatsoever, not from any entity nor person, not from any part of the world. Any attempt or claim of such would be highly illegal and in flagrant violation of civil rights and human rights under international law.

Prince Judge Matthew categorically rejects the modern 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, then walks away, and any further involvement is solely as a volunteer for its non-profit missions.

 

The above verifiable facts, supported by evidence, conclusively prove that attempts at inflammatory defamation against Prince Judge Matthew (and by implied extension against the Templar Order) are knowingly and intentionally false. For a detailed exposé of specific false accusations sometimes raised, and how they are abundantly proven false, see the following topic: “Legal Good Standing of Prince Judge Matthew”.

 

Source References of Evidence for this Topic

 

[1] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, The Chivalry: Classification of the Orders, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 2, “The Grand Master… [is] the holder of the Sovereignty… a Temporal Prince like all the others… That is what is always undoubtedly accepted in the Juridical Law and Public Law”.

[2] United Nations, Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, General Assembly Resolutions 40/32 and 40/146 (1985), Preamble: 10th Paragraph, Article 3.

[3] United Nations, Basic Principles on Right to a Remedy for Violations of Human Rights Law, General Assembly Resolution 60/147 (2005), Articles 12, 14.

[4] United Nations, Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, General Assembly Resolutions 40/32 and 40/146 (1985), Article 7.

[5] United Nations, Basic Principles on Right to a Remedy for Violations of Human Rights Law, General Assembly Resolution 60/147 (2005), Articles 4, 17.

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

[7] United Nations, Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, General Assembly Resolutions 40/32 and 40/146 (1985), Articles 1, 2, 4, 16, 18.

[8] United Nations, Convention on the Law of Treaties, Registry Vol. 1155, No.18232, Vienna (1969), Article 3.

[9] United Nations, Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, General Assembly Resolutions 40/32 and 40/146 (1985), Articles 3, 9.4.

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

[11] UK Serious Crime Act (2007), Schedule 4 “Extraterritoriality”, Part 1, Part 2.1(d).

[12] Official Website of the British Monarchy, The Current Royal Family: The Royal Family Name, Royal.gov.uk, The Royal Household (2015).

[13] 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”.

[14] 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”.

[15] 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”.

[16] Oxon, Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities, 4th Edition, Oxford University Press (2012), pp.19-20.

[17] Practice Briefing, Addressing Members of the Judiciary, New Zealand Law Society, Wellington (January 2014), pp.1-2.

[18] United Nations, Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, General Assembly Resolutions 40/32 and 40/146 (1985), Articles 1, 2, 4.

[19] Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM IV), American Psychiatric Association (1994), Section 299.00 “Autism”, Section 299.80 “Asperger’s”; 5th Edition (DSM V) (2013), “Autism Spectrum”.

[20] Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen, Autism-Spectrum Quotient Test, Cambridge Autism Research Centre (1998), Updated (2001), in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Issue No. 31 (2001).

[21] Dr. Leif Ekblad, Asperger’s Disorder Test (2004), Updated (2013), in the Scientific Journal: Sage Open, Volume 3, Issue 3 (07 August 2013), “Autism, Personality and Human Diversity: Defining Neurodiversity in an Iterative Process Using Aspie Quiz”.

[22] Dr. Emad Younis, Dr. Othman Eldeen & Dr. Ahmed Youness, Medical Evaluation: International Advanced Diagnostics, Ahmed Youness Medical Clinic of the Ministry of Health (January 2014).

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