TEN ILLEGAL MOTIVATIONS FOR UNLAWFUL FALSE DEFAMATION

Against STILAS and Founder Matthew Greene

by Deceptive Criminals

(C) 2009, STILAS International Law Services. All International Rights Reserved

In the financial industry, when businesses require serious professional

services for help to accomplish their strategic goals, those looking to hire a firm often
conduct “due diligence” to achieve a “comfort level” that the firm that is the most
attractive to them is legitimate, and capable of providing the services or results
desired. Because business principals generally lack any experience with real “due
diligence” of reliability or substance, they usually resort to merely searching the
Internet to see if anything happens to come up.

When potential clients considering hiring STILAS search the Internet, they find
many highly positive web pages, including:

1. Verified listings in authoritative and prestigious law firm directories,

confirming that STILAS is licensed and in good standing, and is among the
leading firms specializing in banking and finance;

2. Landmark international media articles proving that STILAS has a long

history of accomplishments, and is well established as an internationally
recognized authority on economic security, anti-fraud and international law
enforcement investigations;

3. Numerous published expert articles by the founder of STILAS, evidencing a

strong background in due diligence, anti-fraud, cooperation with law
enforcement, and a history of voluntary pro bono support and assistance of
small and start-up businesses around the world through such articles;

4. Multiple press releases published in credible and sometimes verified media

web sites, presenting truthful descriptions of hundreds of millions of dollars of
successful funding closings for STILAS clients.

Since STILAS also gives confirmed and accepted new clients copies of its
law firm license and financial services license to prove its authorities and
capabilities, the above is more than enough to demonstrate that STILAS passes all
reasonable “due diligence” criteria for its highly specialized services.

1
 Unfortunately, sometimes potential clients searching the Internet will find a
small number of negative postings in online “chat” forums, purporting to “complain”
about STILAS or “warn” about the accomplished firm. Such postings are almost
entirely anonymous, vague, and filled with highly inflammatory claims that can
easily be proven false.

This supplemental report is presented out of respect to potential clients,

current paying clients, and industry banking partners of STILAS, to educate people
on the real reasons for the general trend of illegal false online defamation against
STILAS and all other professional services firms.

TREND OF DEFAMATION AGAINST SUCCESSFUL FIRMS

The power of the Internet serves to provide a free forum for the exchange of
ideas and information, as a shared public vehicle for publishing thoughts and
comments worldwide. The unfortunate consequence of this power is that it is
frequently abused by people whose statements have no merit, no value, and no
benefit to anyone. The harsh reality is that some people intentionally abuse this tool
to wrongfully cause troubles and damages to innocent victims, for their own
perceived benefit, usually for hidden ulterior motives, and often for illegal or even
criminal purposes.

All established companies fall victim to false unlawful defamation online.

The more successful or important the company, the more aggressive, inflammatory
and false are the claimed complaints, in an effort to overcome the good reputation or
well known authority of the company being defamed. All of the most respected
brand name banks are the subject of outrageous accusations by anonymous posts in
online forums. Almost all law firms and accounting firms, both large and small, are
anonymously accused of all kinds of “fraud” and “scams”, by people who claim to be
clients.

Almost all such false postings defaming good firms involve a demand for
money from the accused firm. The false accusers never simply say that they just
“hired” the firm – they cannot resist inflammatory language like the firm “took” their
money, or they “lost” their money. Are we really expected to believe that anonymous
postings are made out of the goodness of their hearts, out of altruistic moral desires
to help other human beings by “warning” them of a “scam”, that they have nothing
better to do than find ways to damage a good business reputation for the very
doubtful and unlikely purpose of helping people they will never know? Of course not.

Defamers spend time and energy on false and aggressive postings, because
they are after money from the victimized firm, one way or another, only for
themselves. Law enforcement experience is that almost every single anonymous
online false defamation posting is almost immediately accompanied by a private
direct email to the defamed firm making unlawful demands of money that is not
owed, under threat of increasing pressure by false public unlawful defamation.

2
 UNLAWFUL DEFAMATION DEFINED

It is a general doctrine of law in all jurisdictions that making false public

statements against a person or firm is illegal. Commonly known as “slander” (when
verbal) or “libel” (when written), false statements to damage someone’s reputation is
called “defamation”. Defamation is defined by various laws in clear and uniform
terms: “Provably false statements of verifiable fact, that serve to undermine or
damage someone’s reputation.” It is no defence to phrase a false statement as an
“opinion”, one’s “own experience”, or as some alleged “consumer complaint”. As
long as the comments contain some false statements of fact that could be verified as
false and could or should be known to be false, then it is defamation, and it is illegal.

All defamation is illegal, and law suits against false defamers are highly
successful and collect substantial damages from the wrongdoers. Written
defamation (which applies to the Internet) is punished harshly, and damages usually
do not need to be proven, as they are assumed by law due to the written exposure to
the public. Defamation falsely accusing of fraud or professional misconduct is even
more severely punished by “treble damages” and “punitive damages”, which can be
enormous amounts of money far beyond any expected real damages to the victim.

All defamation to enforce demands is criminal as extortion or blackmail,

which are serious federal crimes in all countries. Extortion (in the USA), also called
Blackmail (in the UK), is defined in various laws in uniform terms: “Threats or
actions to damage a person’s reputation, to enforce a demand for anything the
person is not obligated to give.” Defamers who use false unlawful defamation on the
Internet, to enforce demands of things not owed to them, are committing a serious
crime. If a person is entitled to something, they are required by law to use normal
lawful “due process of law”, where an independent, objective and impartial court can
apply any signed contract that governs the transaction, if there ever was any. Using
criminal attacks by defamation to circumvent due process of law is highly illegal, and
indicates that the person defaming probably did something illegal or criminal to
sabotage the transaction by his own fault, if there ever was any transaction.

Defamers know that their false statements are illegal, and that false
defamation to enforce unlawful demands is criminal. This is why they make great
efforts to remain anonymous, to avoid both civil and criminal liability. Experience
shows that once an anonymous online defamer can be identified and their identity
exposed by a reply in that forum, they stop, disappear, or begin modifying their
statements to back-track on their lies.

KNOWN MOTIVATIONS OF ONLINE DEFAMATION

Unlawful false defamation online is posted solely and exclusively by

individuals (almost all anonymous) who can be proven to have any combination of
one or more of 10 specific motivations. You can see from the descriptions that
any law firm that works in the sphere of financing is at extremely high risk of
exposure to people with such motivations. Those motivations are understood as
follows:

3
 (1) They are an actual, potential or aspiring “competitor”, who decided to
attack a more attractive firm, in order to give themselves a false appearance of
credibility by defaming others, because they lack the licenses, experience,
capabilities, intellectual property base or infrastructure to provide such services, and
feel they are or will be losing business opportunities merely because the firm exists;

(2) They are fraudulent “brokers” who promote known fraudulent

investment scams online, who need to attack the credibility of the firm, because it
publishes anti-fraud articles and expertise which expose the defamer’s own
fraudulent scams;

(3) They are unqualified “brokers” or promoters of false schemes, who

need to boost their own image to impress potential clients or victims of their scams,
by being seen to publicly criticize an established competent firm, thereby distracting
from their own lack of substance by implying some superiority;

(4) They are potential clients (or their brokers), who want the firm to accept a
project, who were already rejected by the firm as unqualified to become clients, to
place unlawful pressure supporting illegal demands to force it to accept unqualified
projects or clients, or to retaliate for such being rejected;

(5) They are potential clients (or their brokers), who are determined to
benefit from the firm’s services but are unable or unwilling to pay for such
services, to place unlawful pressure supporting illegal demands to force the firm to
provide free work at its own expense;

(6) They are paying clients who misrepresented that they have a real project
that can lawfully be funded, who wilfully refused to cooperate or provide documents
necessary for the firm to work with, were disqualified for funding by illegal or
criminal actions, and thus severely breached their contract for services. These
decide to place unlawful pressure supporting illegal demands to force the firm to
violate laws on anti-money-laundering and banking compliance to overcome their
own wrongful refusal or disqualification;

(7) They are either clients or non-clients who refuse to wait for real
professional work to be done, who insist upon circumventing all lawful
requirements and procedures under banking laws, and decide to place unlawful
pressure supporting illegal demands to force the firm to somehow illegally obtain
loans from independent banking institutions;

(8) They are political opponents or commercial adversaries of the firm or

its clients, who need to knowingly and wrongfully inflict damages by false defamation
as a form of sabotage, to prevent or undermine the firm’s success or ability to
complete a high-profile or key strategic project that is viewed as a threat to the
defamers, by attacking its attractiveness to both clients and bankers.

(9) They are criminals against whom the firm has collected evidence and
investigations proving serious economic crimes (either to protect the firm’s own
interests or on behalf of clients of the firm), who need to avoid civil liability for
damages from their crimes, and avoid criminal liability including prison time, by

4
attacks of sabotage by defamation against the firm, both to inhibit and interfere with
its ability to use that evidence and to discredit the good firm when it uses that
evidence against the criminals.

(10) They have never dealt with the firm, but are inspired by rumours or
evidence of the firm’s successes in the banking and financial industry, and are
under intense financial pressures themselves either from mismanagement or
misconduct in their own business or from various banking crises or economic
recession. Such people decide to simply and directly extort money from the firm
which owes them nothing, enforcing the illegal demands under pressure of unlawful
false defamation.

LIMITED CASES OF FALSE DEFAMATION AGAINST STILAS

In the more than 15 year history and good reputation of STILAS (since
1994), servicing over 100 private clients, and dozens of high-profile government
clients of various countries, with such high exposure to people of many unlawful and
unethical motivations who want to benefit from (or sabotage) legal services and
financial services, it is indeed very surprising how few cases of online defamation
there have ever been against the firm.

Campaigns of unlawful and provably false defamation against STILAS began

on the internet only in July, 2007, in the context of a triple banking crisis and
economic recession that paralyzed the banking industry worldwide, and was
reported by the international mass-media as the worst crisis since the American
Great Depression of the 1930’s. This context greatly amplified people’s unlawful
motivations (from the list above), and those false postings set the precedent, giving
future unlawful defamers the idea for how to illegally pressure the firm.

So far to date, as of January 2010, there have been only 5 separate cases of
defamation postings against STILAS in online “chat” forums. Of the many replies
and rebuttals of various anonymous posters within each forum, only 2 were from
past clients of the firm, both of whom had severely breached their contracts by abuse
of services and criminal conduct, and the firm owed them nothing. Once those
people were identified and exposed on the forum, they stopped posting and
disappeared. In the first few defamation forum cases, there were also numerous
positive postings defending STILAS, and exposing the identities, fraud and
misrepresentation of the purported critics.

STILAS possesses litigation files and criminal complaint files containing

documentary evidence of wrongdoing and unlawful activity of almost all defamers
involved, and has retained international detective agencies and outsourced litigating
law firms to prosecute such criminals in cooperation with law enforcement. Federal
criminal complaints have already been filed by STILAS against some of the
participants, and more will be filed. This is necessary to defend its good reputation,
and protect its credibility and ability to work with banks to provide desired results for
its legitimate paying clients.