Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

OFFICIAL CLARIFICATION OF MATTHEW GREENE VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION

AND STILAS LICENSED GOOD STANDING

Commentary on Voluntary Resignation of STILAS Founder Matthew Greene, and


Clarification of Lawful and Justifiable Position of Matthew Greene and STILAS

December 16, 2009

This formal and certified statement is in response to malicious rumors and inaccurate partial
information regarding a State Bar Association in the United States, related to the original
founder and former President of STILAS. This document clarifies the harmless and
meaningless nature of that matter, and demonstrates that it has no relation to nor any impact
upon STILAS and its continued good standing under both of its licenses.

Such willful disinformation has mistakenly exaggerated statements, resulting in


misinterpretations that are not supported by facts in evidence, and as a result makes false and
misleading statements. The information provided is incorrect, erroneous, taken out of context
in a misleading manner, and otherwise shows isolated facts in a “false light” without legal
basis.

The Due Diligence package of documents on STILAS truthfully show all potential and current
clients that the international law firm license of STILAS is registered in a foreign multinational
banking jurisdiction. Its status as a law firm was never dependent upon any personal license
of its original founder, nor any other person, as an individual, and was not in any way
dependent upon any license from any part of the United States. STILAS is owned by a group
of international lawyers who supervise executives of the firm, and the firm is licensed as a legal
entity in its own right, supported by the licenses of the international lawyers.

The original founder of STILAS from 15 years ago, Matthew Greene, has not held any active
license from a State Bar in the United States since a very long time ago, as it was never used
and never needed, and he did not personally represent any clients in legal matters requiring a
license. For many years, he held only “associate” status, intentionally to correctly indicate that
the membership was “non-active”, to show that it was not being used or relied on. In
November, 2009 he voluntarily resigned from the State Bar, motivated by a career change to
diplomatic work for foreign governments, to comply with requirements under the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations of 1963.

1
At the time when he needed to voluntarily resign for desirable career advancement, two false
complaints happened to be pending. Overwhelming documentary evidence proves that both
complaints were knowingly false and made only for criminal purposes. Both complainants had
breached a signed and enforceable commercial contract with the law firm, owe substantial
penalties for breach of contract, and engaged in unlawful false defamation and criminal
extortion in further violation of that contract. The false complaints were filed solely to
circumvent due process of law, interfere with enforcement of the firm’s lawful rights under the
contract, and avoid their own civil and criminal liabilities.

Under the State Bar rules, once complaints have been filed, a lawyer is not allowed to
voluntarily resign without making some admissions to something, even if insignificant. For
merely technical reasons, because this rule is strictly applied regardless of facts,
circumstances or exculpatory evidence, the only vehicle for voluntary resignation at the time
was called “Voluntary Revocation”. Since the inactive “associate” status was never used and
not needed, and for unrelated positive reasons it was necessary to resign, there was no
justifiable purpose to make substantial expense to prove all allegations false in a full hearing.

In the “Voluntary Revocation” agreement documents with the State Bar, Matthew Greene did
NOT admit to any wrongdoing, did NOT admit to any misconduct, and none was proven,
neither by hearing nor otherwise. No due process of law was provided regarding either false
complaint. He was simply permitted to resign in accordance with applicable procedures.

The isolated, limited, innocent, basic facts “admitted” to (Addendum, Exhibit “A”), were
essentially:

(1) Not providing work product – This is proven false, as evidence shows that both clients had
severely breached their signed contracts, refused all cooperation, and failed to provide
materials on their own companies and projects, literally giving the firm nothing to work with.
Under the signed contracts work product was in fact not owed in the context of
fundamental breach by a client. Work product was completed anyway, and delivered to
the clients after the Bar matter was resolved, which removed the conflict of interest that
prevented earlier delivery. This “admission” is thus justified and harmless, as well as false
when out of context;

(2) Not communicating – This is proven false, as evidence shows that the firm gave
meaningful responses to all inquiries within only 48 hours, and periodically gave detailed
written reports to clients. As an individual Mr. Greene was justified to “not communicate”,
because under the signed contracts the firm (with other attorneys) handled
communications and he was not personally obligated to work on those particular projects
nor communicate with those particular clients. This “admission” is thus justified and
harmless, as well as false when out of context;

(3) Not returning money clients had paid – This is proven false, as the signed, binding,
enforceable contracts were commercial in nature, involving investment by and investor
rights of the firm. By law and contract, the clients in fact owe substantial penalties and
damages for breach, and are not entitled to any refund whatsoever. Furthermore Mr.
Greene did not personally receive any money and was not personally responsible for them.
This “admission” is thus justified and harmless, as well as false when out of context.

2
The so-called “admissions” for “Voluntary Revocation” of his unused non-active “associate”
membership in the State Bar were limited and harmless, and required only on a technicality, to
voluntarily resign without great expense or delay. The resignation documents prove the
following facts about these “admissions”:

(A) No wrongdoing or misconduct was ever admitted. They are merely isolated facts
taken out of context. When placed back in the context of the valid, signed, binding and
enforceable commercial contracts, these same facts are fully justified, under law;

(B) No wrongdoing or misconduct was ever proven. No complaint ever went to a


“hearing”, and no “due process of law” was ever provided to consider the voluminous
documentary evidence (in our possession) proving every element of the complaints
false, and proving the isolated “admissions” out of context to be fully justified as legal
and ethical under law.

(C) There were no violations for which a lawyer would be “disbarred”. Many lawyers
accused of delayed work product, insufficient communication or refusal to refund a
retainer receive merely a “public reprimand” and are not even “suspended”, let alone
“disbarred”;

(D) This was merely a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of a wholly voluntary


resignation. The State Bar made a fundamental mistake, treating a non-active non-
license as a “license” (Affidavit, Section 1), and requiring standardized “Voluntary
Revocation” documents only because of a procedural technicality.

(E) They were solely for technical procedural reasons for resignation, explicitly limited
to voluntarily terminating membership in the State Bar, and cannot be used for any other
purpose (Affidavit, Section 3).

(F) The voluntary resignation was mistreated using standard “disciplinary action”
format documents with required wording, only because he “presented to the Board” his
request to resign “by tendering his consent… at a time when” false complaints
happened to be pending, and only because of that timing were limited “admissions”
mandatory regardless of justification. (Consent Order, Section 1.)

The purported “admissions” consisted only of isolated lawful actions exercising legal rights,
fully justified by valid enforceable commercial contractual rights under applicable law.
The very same facts allow the firm to file both criminal complaints and civil lawsuits against
both clients, who filed knowingly false complaints in furtherance of breach of contract and
criminal extortion.

If any person ever attempts to claim that Matthew Greene was “disbarred” or “lost his license”,
that would be knowingly false unlawful defamation, for the following specific reasons:

(1) The mandatory “admissions” fail to show any misconduct, are justified as a proper
exercise of legal contractual and investor rights, and were required only on a technicality
in order to resign for other purposes;

3
(2) There was no active license to be “disbarred” from. He held only an “associate”
membership which was non-active and not a “license”, and was never used,
represented or relied on as such;

(3) The non-license “associate” membership was intentionally given up as “Voluntary


Revocation”, as a much desired resignation, in connection with a major career
advancement in even more highly trusted positions for governments.

The State Bar published a December 10 notice about the November 10, 2009 resignation,
stating generically that it “revoked” Mr. Greene’s “license to practice law”. This is merely a
“public relations” spin on an innocent resignation, to resolve and dismiss the false complaints
without any hearing, while portraying the importance of the Bar. (The original accusation was
“unauthorized practice of law”, meaning “without a license”, absurdly contradicting the idea that
there was any “license” to “revoke”.) It did specify that he was “consenting to the revocation”,
proving it was voluntary upon his own initiative.

The notice misleadingly and out of context used the phrases “acknowledged that he was facing
charges” and “admitted that the material facts of the charges are true”. They willfully omitted to
truthfully disclose that the “material” facts were not any misconduct, and were justifiable
enforcement of lawful rights. It is significant that for all other lawyers who are “suspended” or
“disbarred”, the State Bar always includes in the notice specific violations proven or admitted.
The fact that in this case they refused to do so, proves that they know the admissions were
harmless, and it would be self-contradictory and embarrassing to list non-violations justified by
right as grounds for purported “disciplinary action”. This further demonstrates that the
“Voluntary Revocation” was only a misapplied technicality, and an ill-suited and inappropriate
procedure for a voluntary resignation.

For all of the above facts and reasons, Mr. Greene was NOT “disbarred”. That is a false
misrepresentation, contradicted by facts in evidence. It was a truly voluntary resignation at his
own insistence, for other innocent good reasons, in accordance with applicable procedures at
the time. This was nothing more than a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of a wholly
voluntary resignation with no misconduct proven nor admitted at any time.

Matthew Greene still continues to be a fully authorized international lawyer in good standing,
under foreign license, permitted to practice international and national law worldwide, including
in the United States. STILAS continues to hold its own international license as a firm,
and remains wholly unaffected by the voluntary release of the unused non-active
“associate” status of an individual founder.

Furthermore, Matthew Greene continues to be highly trusted by Presidential administrations


and national law enforcement agencies of multiple countries, and is still highly in demand by
governments. For this reason, he is currently in the process of accepting a diplomatic
assignment for a major UN country of strategic geopolitical interest, which under the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations restricts him from holding an “executive” position in any
commercial operations. Therefore, he had resigned as President of STILAS.

4
Matthew Greene’s stepping down from the position of President took place a full year before
the State Bar resignation. Resigning from STILAS was not caused by any events with the
unnecessary and unused State Bar membership, as it happened a whole year earlier, but
rather proves that the State Bar resignation was a pre-planned, voluntary follow-through on
personal plans that had already been implemented all year long.

As the original founder of the firm, during the transitional year that was already completed and
has already passed, he remained involved with the firm in a supportive role and advisory
capacity, as “Resident Of Counsel”, a formal title used for lawyers who hold government
positions or foreign licenses. In this limited role, he accomplished and completed everything
necessary for the firm’s success with international banks and collateral investors, for the
benefit of STILAS clients, and to help the firm finish everything it started for current clients.

Meanwhile, STILAS had already selected, recruited, trained and prepared a new President,
who is an accomplished investment banker with a background as senior executive for
mortgage lenders. The firm has also added a new Vice President with a strong background in
client relations. Both of these new executives, while not lawyers by profession, are fully
covered by the international foreign law firm license of STILAS, and are supervised by the
licensed attorneys who own the firm.

In conclusion, despite recent changes that can be misunderstood, the licensed status of both
STILAS as a firm, and of Matthew Greene as its original founder and former President, remain
strong and in good standing, allowing the firm to continue servicing its clients as a fully
authorized law firm and financial services institution.

The voluntary and desired elimination of the unused non-active State Bar membership, and
new fresh talent in the President and Vice President positions, enhances the strength and
productivity of the firm in the interests of its good clients. It also frees the original founder to
bring the firm more elite institutional resources and government support, of the kind which
previously gave it enough power, intellectual property and competitive advantages for the past
15 years and over $7.0 Billion USD in success. We look forward to a renewal of that “power
cycle” for the benefit of all clients.

Board of Supervising Attorneys

STILAS International Law Services, P.A.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi