Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)/Archive 1

Possibly useful links

interview at cnn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

another link--Jimbo Wales 14:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

White Wash

This article is a whitewash and a disgrace to WikiPedia. He is NOT a qualified lawyer. There are no records of him having qualified in Ireland or the UK. Isn't that good enough? Mannixstreetpreacher 20:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC) The protection should be removed immediately. Otherwise, the entire article should be deleted. Mannixstreetpreacher 21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is rather obvious that he is licensed in Italy, thus eligible to practice in the U.K., and Ireland or any other European country. Fred Bauder 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the law society said he had no legal qualifications whatsoever. That's a direct quote from them.

Obviously you have failed to read the FINDING OF FACT by Mr Justice Jackson which is by far higher authority than the Law Society: " In his decision, Mr Justice Jackson commented: "He is entitled as an Italian avvocato to the same courteous treatment before the courts and the authorities of this country that I would expect any English solicitor or counsel to receive before the courts or the authorities in Italy."[1] read the case citation. It is a finding of FACT based upon evidence! He is also admitted to the International Bar, American Bar and the NY State Bar

When did he pass the NY state bar exam? I can find no evidence to support this claim Casmurro 07:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Casmurro

He probably would not have to as an Italian lawyer in good standing. Fred Bauder 23:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I presume that's a joke? Not have to pass the NY bar because he is qualified in another jurisdiction despite not knowing any NY law? I am a qualified lawyer and I would have to pass the NY Bar before practising there.

I've seen an image of his current membership card from the NY bar association. I'm actually not sure that you must be admitted to the bar in NY to join the bar association. He says he did take and pass the California bar in the 1980's. This sort of inquiry needs to be directed to the bar associations who have extended membership to him. I could not answer such questions without doing research which I have neither patience, time, or money to do. He has chosen not to join the Law Society in the United Kingdom. That is optional. He is entitled as a European lawyer to practice in the UK regardless of membership in the Law Society. As far as knowing NY law, he would need to associate with counsel who is familiar with NY law if he represented someone, as he must in the UK. Fred Bauder 05:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

and regularly goes to visit clients in Baghdad heavilly escorted by the US Military. He contributes to Jurist, files documents with the IHT in Baghdad, so can't really understand the logic behind suppositions that he is not who he says he is. Heaven sake its years since the Law Society said these things because the man refuses to register he says (and its covered in the Hoogstraten case transcripts and the finding of fact by Mr Justice Jackson -and not contested actually by the Law Society at that hearing-) because EC Directive 77/249 only requires registration if a person practises FULL TIME in a EU State but one that practises 'from time to time' is NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER and he says he won't register as he lives, resides, is domiciled, in Italy. If we are now saying that Mr Justice Jackson got it wrong well why did'nt the Law Society and the Home Office/Prison department appeal? They did not because they tried and were REFUSED because they could NOT prove he was NOT an avvocato whereas he had proved he WAS. Ever since the Law Society have in effect seems to me had it in for him but they do not preclude him from working. Follow his diary on www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com and you can see the kind of cases he gets up to. Looks to me that those saying otherwise are flogging a dead horse. the man is who he says he is. And by the way if you read carefully the Hoogstraten transcript that found in his favour by Mr Justice Jackson you will see that 'John' was NOT him and the Home Office conceeded that and also that he has NO CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS. Now personally, I don't like the man because of whom he represents and the worse the criminal the quicker he is there but lets not spoil a target by making false accusations against him because that way he will succeed always. For m,y purposes I hope he stops representing scum, dictators, murderers because he is actually very good and gets them off and we dont need murderers on the streets.

This sounds a great deal like the subject of the article, but well said. Fred Bauder 16:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We have been following the career of Giovanni Di Stefano for many years. he has been accused in the media of participating in the murder of 25,000 people in Bosnia (Daily Record) that he was at a mafia meeting as lawyer to the mob in 1991 (Unita and Daily Record) and in the case of Italian journalist who has written these things last week found himself facing criminal defamation charges in Court in Rome and seems the journalist will be jailed in Italy where defamation is a crime. Di Stefano was in the US with MGM in 1991 and could never have attended any meeting. Neither has he participated in any murder of 25,000 people in Bosnia (the journalist in Yugoslavia was sentenced to six months imprisonment and heavilly fined. Di Stefano paid his fine and pleaded for the journalist not to be jailed!!! work that out). He has produced a top CD with a singer and attracting big named stars. He has written a book that despite being in English sold 100,000 copies and he has donated the proceeds to a charity. He has paid for a UK Pensioner to be released from jail (George Frost) for non payment of Housing Tax. I have seen him in the High Court in the Hoogstraten case addressing Mr Justice Peter Smith, seen him in Court in Beverly Hills, he was on record as lawyer at the ICTY for Arkan, and of course for Saddam Hussein, Barzan Al Tikriti, Awwad Al Bandar, Taha Yassin Ramadan and if you look at press reports re Tariq Aziz and Humad Humadi. On YouTube there are his filmings of what its like in Baghdad and is super protected by the US Military far more than other lawyers. I think we should concentrate on stopping him from taking cases of murder/rape (we know of two cases of murder that he has won in the UK which the person released committed offences again)and here in Italy some very serious organised crime clients that he has succeeded. As stated we (at least I) do not like the man not for what he is but how he is able to exploit the law the failings of Prosecutors and get people freed on technical issues. But for us to keep on and on about fraud, John, not being a lawyer will simply distract from the objective. He is heavilly favoured by the Center Right politicians here (Berlusconi et al) even though he has heavilly accused Berlusconi of complicit to murdering Saddam Hussein. He seems immune from defamation claims and we could find none against him for the very serious statements he makes. He is however, very friendly guy and meet him in the bar he will buy you a coffee. He is heavilly protected by the Italian State because of his stance against the death sentence. He is married twice and has five children. he was actually born in Petrella Tifernina not Campobasso. He is NOT a British Lawyer but practises from time to time in the UK but he also practises is other jurisdictions. I hope he stops taking on dictators and other vermin clients but we will never stop this by making silly accusations against him. He has sued The Scotsman and the Guardian in Rome and Jim Cusack of the Irish Independant. they have NEVER repeated their allegations against him since. He is very controversial here in Italy and often storms out of court just to obtain a delay so the statute of limitations is exhausted. But for us to say he is not who he is is frankly silly and won't achieve anything.

THIS JUST IN FROM THE SUNDAY EXPRESS IN THE UK REGARDING IAN BRADY AND IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE MEAN:

" BRADY TO SUE OVER 'PRIVATE' PHOTOS HE TOOK ON MOORS

It is quite clear that Di Stefano is who he says he is and has very controversial clients. His diary talks of applying for parole for Brady!!!! Why? Because in 1982 the then Chief Justice lane recommended 40 years tariff which Di Stefano says (rightly) has now expired and Brady as a matter of law must be entitled to a parole hearing! We researched Brady and never found the Lord Lane decision until we went to the High Court library and Di Stefano is right regarding the law that Brady is entitled to a hearing but do we want a man like Brady out? It is why Di Stefano must be treated appropriately because by accusing him falsly will achieve nothing.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.57.155.171 (talk • contribs).

Please don't insert long quotes from copyrighted sources if a link will do. I don't understand this man at all. He must be the devil's advocate. Fred Bauder 17:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Defending the Indefensible is the title of his book. His latest target is a legend of a singer called Luigi Tenco whom he says (citing sources that even the Secret Services don't have access) was a spy for Italy! Its an incredible assertion yet it seems he may be right. Apologies re copyright material. Will post link in future. Re Brady reading his diary it seems he is representing him on the basis that Brady is entitled to die and Di stefano said on TalkRadio in Ireland that its absurd Brady is costing 500,000 per annum in hospital expenses and 1 million on legal fees when all he wants is to die which Di Stefano says is what should happen. Di Stefano also acted for Myra Hindley. He has, according to his diary and ITV News pursuaded Brady to give the location for two bodies which will ease the heartache of over 40 years. His diary says the location will be released shortly. if he has been able to talk Brady into giving the info its a real result and probably the best, if not only, good deed Di Stefano will have achieved as a lawyer. Winning the John Goldfinger Palmer and Hoogstraten cases was terrible but legally correct. There is a BBC documentary called NOTORIOUS http://www.blastfilms.co.uk/notorious.html which is well worth watching and answers a lot of questions that have been raised in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.57.155.171 (talk • contribs).

This is the link. It is above as "BRADY TO SUE OVER 'PRIVATE' PHOTOS HE TOOK ON MOORS". Fred Bauder 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

heads up

Might see a lot of traffic on this article tomorrow as Private Eye has a story that suggests this article has been whitewashed by Jimbo wales. --Fredrick day 14:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hum seems the article IS being whitewashed - Sentencing him to five years in prison, Judge Anthony Lewisohn concluded that Di Stefano is "one of nature’s fraudsters ... a swindler without scruple or conscience". http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=954&id=1129122003

How about this from the BBC The Law Society is unequivocal in its assessment. He's not a solicitor and he's not a barrister," says a spokesman. "As far as we're concerned he has no legal qualifications whatsoever. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4394095.stm

or is the BBC suddenly an unreliable source? --Fredrick day 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Independent article which is cited in this article page includes the following, "He told The Independent: 'Despite people writing about police inquiries into my activities, which isn't true, I am still practising and am a member of the American Bar and the International Bar Association and qualified in Italy. I refuse to register with the Law Society so they don't like me.'" So this seems to be a dispute between Mr. di Stephano and the Law Society, but only one side is being presented in the article. -- Donald Albury 15:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What is "Private Eye"? Whitewashed? Nonsense. It is common practice to stub and rewrite an article which is problematic. No one has said that the BBC is an unreliable source, Frederick day, please do not make up such nonsense to lead people astray. People who come to this talk page need to know in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS: there is no censorship of Wikipedia, but there IS editorial control and responsibility. Write a great article, stick to the known facts, do not speculate beyond the sources, attribute all claims to the sources with exact quotes where possible.--Jimbo Wales 16:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You could always have looked it up on Wikipedia! :) I've also read the article in said satire magazine today, and it seems to me like it could have a valid point - the article at the moment seems to be somewhat short on criticisms from well-known sources about di Stefano's practice and qualifications. The article in Private Eye can be found in the next section. Shrub of power 22:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Private Eye is a well-known british news/current affairs and satire magazine - I ended up here after seeing an article titled "Wikipedia Whispers" which will appear in the issue that hits the newstands tomorrow (23/05/07). Your mention is at the end of the article - On 24 april this year, without warning, Wikipedia founder and director Jimmy "jimbo" wales personally deleted the entire page. Soon afterwards a new, cleaned-up version of the di stefano entry was created - minus all the awkward facts.

It points towards (amongst other things) both the quotation from the judge at his fraud case (which has appeared in a number of sources) and the quote from the Law society as facts that have been expunged from the article.--Fredrick day 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, well, the best thing to do is to make the article excellent by tomorrow. :) It is currently neither protected nor semi-protected, and so anyone can edit it. I can only assume that we will need to semi-protect it if it gets the attention of anyone from that news coverage, but nevertheless, work can and should proceed rapidly to make the article good.

It is just nonsense to accuse me (or us) of "whitewashing" anything. The article needs to be good.--Jimbo Wales 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Private Eye's assertion that this article has been messed with seems like it could be valid. Giovanni gives out plenty of rope with which to hang himself in his interviews - he comes across as someone interested in defending those who cannot be defended simply for the notoriety. Early versions of the article merely used his own comments to display his flaws - and how can you question the validity of himself as a source? Now the article is devoid of his own testimony. Not letting him speak for himself seems to me to be a much graver insult than letting him paint, through his own words, an accurate (if comprehensively blemished) picture. I would also like to see links to the main news-sites and interviews on him put back into the article. They come up on the first page of a Google of his name anyway, and include the BBC and the Guardian. I'm sorry if his own words make him look unlikeable, perhaps he should be more careful in the future, but there is no reason to silence him in the name of improving his image. --Alsvid 18:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Private Eye Article

Here is the article regarding this page from the British satire magazine Private Eye:

(Copyrighted material removed)

Hope it provokes some debate. Shrub of power 22:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What was the date of this article? It does not seem to be on the Private Eye website, at least a search returns nothing. Could someone who has a paper copy of this article confirm it? Fred Bauder 13:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was Issue Number 1185, 25th May - 7th June. They do not archive everything on their website. Discosebastian 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm this, I also have the paper copy of this article.

I read this today. I'm starting to wonder if Wikipedia has turned evil. We must find proper ciatations for those embarassing episodes. Gareth E Kegg 01:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipeia has not turned evil, but does possess the potential to harm living persons by publicizing unsourced, poorly sourced or non-notable negative and/or private information about them. Even well sourced items may not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article about a living person. Unfortunately, some editors seem to regard themselves as investigative reporters. Trying to dig up and add every piece of dirt one can find on a person is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. In the case of living persons, fairness to the subject must trump other policies. This applies to the manner in which information is presented (NPOV) as well as to what is included in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 09:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

'Every piece of dirt' included what Giovanni himself said - and it was indeed quite unpleasant! This is now missing from the article, when it was prominent in early versions. If it was put back, the article would indeed be harmful to him. --Alsvid 18:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read BLP carefully. Fairness to living persons doesn't trump our other policies. BLP is entirely about especially strict adherence to our policies (NPOV, V, NOR) in order to be fair to living people. Wikipedia's reach is great, and something in an article can affect a living person's life, so placing fact tags and other tags etc and waiting isn't an appropriate solution, the way it may be in other cases. But BLP doesn't mean that we should protect living people--and it's often taken to mean that. If it adhered to our other policies then the material was fine. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:53, May 31 2007 (UTC)

That is the problem with the journalistic sources we are using; they do "dig up and add every piece of dirt one can find". It is not hard to see why. Giovanni di Stefano has represented some very evil people, representation they had every right to, and apparently not received. I'm not sure he's even a very good lawyer; what I think is that defendants who were thought guilty were thought not deserving of zealous representation. How otherwise could di Stafano work these miracles? Is he somehow an order of magnitude better than the lawyers of the United Kingdom? I doubt it. There might be quite a story here, should a competent journalist (or the Law Society) chose to investigate it. Fred Bauder 15:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Private Eye, a major British magazine, has published all of these allegations means they aren't just idle internet forum chat. Private Eye directly quotes the Law Society as saying that Giovanni has no legal qualifications whatsoever. Surely that kind of statement is very very significant in an article about a prominent lawyer?

Yes, it is significant as slander. Fred Bauder 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A lawyer or not???

From Julien Foster 23:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Julien Foster

I edited the first sentence which seemed to me to be tendentious to read as follows:

Giovanni di Stefano (born 1955) is Italian-born and describes himself as a lawyer working in the United Kingdom and Italy although his entitlement to describe himself as a lawyer is in doubt.

My sentence has been changed to move the controversy elsewhere: I see the point but I do not think the first sentence should state as a fact that he is a lawyer: comments please?

User:Julien Foster

I don' t think there is doubt that he is a "lawyer" (in a CA judgement he was described as an "italian lawyer") -- the doubt is over small print of his qualifications and his validity to act as a solicitor in E&W. It is unclear whether he has ever even tried to act as a solicitor in the High Court -- he works via his Rome office and appoints UK lawyers for court cases. The wording "an Italian-born lawyer working in the United Kingdom and Italy" is the best neutral phrasing for the intro, and all the detailed discussion can go under "Dispute over qualifications" below. --mervyn 08:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen the Court of Appeal judgment in question and should be very grateful if you could refer me to it. I am aware of Lord Justice Rose on 27 January 2004 having asked to know di Stefano's qualifications; and having criticised him for submitting Advice to the Court of Appeal when such documents normally emanate from solicitors or barristers. I am not aware of any evidence or decision by the Court of Appeal that acknowledges that di Stefano is an Italian lawyer.

It seems to me that the best neutral wording to be inserted before the word "lawyer" is "self-described" and to leave out the material about his status being "in doubt", which as you rightly say, can be dealt with under "Dispute over qualifications". But I do think it is wrong in principle to have - without further qualification - the assertion that he is a lawyer.

Anyone agree/disagree? User:Julien Foster 10:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I see reported here ( http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=103672004 ) that Di S did indeed act in the High Court in the Palmer case, but it seems the challenge to his qualifs does not seem to have been pursued further by the court. The CA ref to him as an "Italian lawyer" is in [2004] EWCA Civ 968 para 23: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2750/raja-v-hoogstraten.htm . I think "self-described" is a weasel word and best avoided if we can. --mervyn 11:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Practice in U.K. courts seems to be governed by the European Communities (Services of Lawyers) Order 1978. If he is admitted to practice in Italy and conforms to that order there is no issue. He is required by the Order to produce evidence of being a licensed attorney on demand, " A competent authority may at any time request a person seeking to provide any services to verify his status as a European lawyer". They are also required to be associated in the matter with a properly licensed U.K. lawyer. Fred Bauder 19:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe he only acts as an "advocate" in UK courts, which isn't the same as a lawyer. Normal court responsibilities would be handled by qualified lawyers and barristers I imagine. SR

As I read it a European lawyer practicing in a country other than his country of origin is required to identify themselves by the term used in their country of origin. In the case of a lawyer licensed in Italy that would be "avvocato". See [1] for full details. They are required to have what in the US would called a co-counsel, licensed in the jurisdiction. Fred Bauder 15:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Representation in legal proceedings
5. No enactment or rule of law or practice shall prevent a European lawyer from providing any service in relation to any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, before any court, tribunal or public authority (including appearing before and addressing the court, tribunal or public authority) by reason only that he is not an advocate, barrister or solicitor; provided that throughout he is instructed with, and acts in conjunction with, an advocate, barrister or solicitor who is entitled to practise before the court, tribunal or public authority concerned and who could properly provide the service in question."[2] Fred Bauder 15:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What is missing

Lots of negative stuff here. Where are the stories regarding his successes and information regarding his positive attributes? He must be a brilliant litigator to have accomplished what he has. Fred Bauder 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, he might just be a brilliant self-publicist, in the style of Jeffrey Archer. He claimed to represent Saddam Hussein as soon as the trial was announced, yet he never actually did this.

Need much better sourcing

In my opinion, NONE of the critical newspaper pieces should be accepted as simple fact by Wikipedia, since clearly Mr. di Stefano disputes a fair amount of it. We don't say "The sky is blue". We say "On June 3, 1944, the BBC reported 'The sky is blue.'" Please rewrite many sentences throughout the article to be a lot more careful about this.

Remember, if you write "The sky is blue" in the article YOU are asserting it, and YOU are legally responsible for it. If you write "The BBC said 'The sky is blue'," you make it a lot clearer what you are saying. You are not reporting on the underlying events: you are reporting on what the dispute is about.--Jimbo Wales 19:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

He seems about as successful in disputing it, however, as he is in defending war criminals. --Alsvid 18:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite true. But Fred Bauder's position appears to be that, if we don't consider it absolutely proven that the sky is blue, we should pretend the BBC didn't say it was.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.157.252 (talk • contribs)

misleading

How is it misleading to quote the law society saying they don't believe he's a lawyer? Are we trying for a follow-up article in private eye? --Fredrick day 19:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

By the terms of Annex 10A European Communities (Services of Lawyers) Order 1978:

"Power to require a European lawyer to verify his status

12. A competent authority may at any time request a person seeking to provide any services to verify his status as a European lawyer.

13. Where a request has been made under article 12, the person to whom it is made shall not, except to the extent (if any) allowed by the competent authority making the request, be entitled to provide services in the United Kingdom until he has verified his status as a European lawyer to the satisfaction of that authority.

14. For the purposes of articles 12 and 13, a competent authority is -

(a) where the services which the person concerned seeks to provide are reserved to advocates or barristers, or in any case where the person concerned claims to be a barrister established in practice in the Republic of Ireland, the Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar, the Faculty of Advocates, or the Benchers of the Inn of Court of Northern Ireland, according to the part of the United Kingdom concerned; or (b) where subparagraph (a) does not apply, the Law Society, the Law Society of Scotland, or the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland, according to the part of the United Kingdom concerned; or (c) in any case, any court, tribunal or public authority before which the person concerned seeks to provide services."

By the terms of the Order there are accepted ways to verify the status of a lawyer. It is misleading to cite a journalistic source which without reverence to European Communities (Services of Lawyers) Order 1978 makes such a statement. Basically we are dealing with an unreliable source (at least with respect to legal statements). Fred Bauder 20:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Likewise with respect to statements that there was a successful appeal to the fraud conviction or that the appeal was unsuccessful a reliable source would look the matter up in court records and cite them. Here, where we have two sources saying there was a successful appeal and one source saying no, obviously someone did not get it right. The deportation from the United States and the ban from New Zealand is another matter. Perhaps these things happened, but without reference to his current status, he has apparently visited both places following these incidents, our information is misleading. Fred Bauder 21:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It tests credibility to suggest that it is not relevant for a British lawyer not to be recognised as such in his home jurisdiction by his home regulator. Even if it is misleading, it would be better to post the statement and an explanation of the ramifications of European law as opposed to simply removing all reference to the event and spamming the talk pages with Byzantine European treaties. I'm going to revert it to its state before editing by Fred Bauder and JzG. If you feel this is unfair perhaps you should re-edit the article in a clearer and more detailed manner. As I'm not a lawyer I don't feel able to do this.

Except I can't because it's been locked now. Ah well, looks like Wikipedia is going to be in Private Eye again.

Apparently Italy is his home jurisdiction. As to "Byzantine European treaties", would you try to edit an article on relativity if you were ignorant regarding the subject? Why is this different? Fred Bauder 23:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And piss on Private Eye. A printed drama site, is still just a drama site. Fred Bauder 23:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever actually read Private Eye? The front half of the magazine, though occasionally flippant in tone, is as serious in content as any mainstream newspaper and more than most. Also, none of the negative stories here relies on Private Eye anyway - they're all sourced elsewhere. Your attitude is very difficult to understand - above, you claimed that positive stories about di Stefano were missing but failed to point to any, merely declaring without evidence that he "must be" very good at his job; yet you keep insisting we should whitewash very well-sourced negative stories. Unless you actually are Giovanni di Stefano this is hard to explain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.157.252 (talk • contribs)

There are lots of positive storiesw about Di Stefano. His defence of wind machines see BBC website. His paying council tax of George Frost a pensioner. His charitable Foundation that has given away more than $5m in ten years. His CD with JustCarmen (www.myspace.com/justcarmenmessi. His book Defending the Indefensible. The numerous occasions he has intervened with his 'clients' in hostake taking situations. His paying tuition fees for a number of those orphaned in terror attacks. He acts for clients free mostly. His funding of a retirement home in Italy for those without pensions. His paying bail for English bomb joke girl. His defence of pensioners in general on council tax matters often paying their bills to avoid jail. His payment of artificial limbs (more than 300 to date) in countries where landmines are abundant. We have followed Mr Di Stefano's carreer for a long time. He is indeed a mysterious man. He knows much about many secret historical events for example the murder of Luigi Tenco and Passolini! He does defend many dangerous men. He acts for Mullah Omar the Commander of the faithfull and Chief Taliban. He acts for terrorist organizations. He averted in March 1999 a bloodbath according to evidence we uncovered when he pursuaded Arkan to remove his troops from Kosovo. He saved for certain the British Embassy in Belgrade and protected the Italian Embassy and gave refuge to its staff at his own house in Belgrade. He was instrumental in the release of the Australian hostages in Belgrade and released a British Person jailed in Belgrade during the bombing. He pursuaded General Than Shwa to release the British Protestor from jail in 'Burma'. There are many more than positive deeds that Di Stefano has accomplished but of course marred by the very fact he acts for those who the rest of us think are evil.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.10.222.186 (talk • contribs).

OK, St John of the Oppressed. If I pray to you, will you heal me? Fred Bauder 14:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. You see, Fred? This guy has actually come up with positive stories (though he hasn't sourced them) - that's a sight better than saying "Why isn't this site reporting all the positive stories?" when you yourself apparently have no idea whether there are any, and at the same time demanding we ignore all negative ones no matter how well sourced.

Oh no! A long-running printed magazine disagrees with Wikipedia! Perhaps we should call in UN peacekeepers. --Alsvid 18:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of them disagreeing, they actually agreed with the Wikipedia article. The problems started when Jimbo Wales personally intervened by totally deleting the page and then publishing a new version with all the critical material removed. It's a whitewash, pure and simple.

An interesting link

This link is quite interesting. But is it even the same person? And if the appeal was successful, what merit do the comments of the sentencing judge have or the details of the underlying charge? Fred Bauder 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The appeal was not successful, according to the Scotsman article cited. But there is overemphasis on the Scotsman citation as a source in this article -- we really need precise case citations for the conviction and appeal dismissal. To the Law Library, Wikipedians! --mervyn 07:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Di Stefano has claimed that his 1986 conviction was overturned on the "second" appeal.[3] Any citation that an appeal was denied does not invalidate di Stefano's claim. I have not seen sufficently complete sources cited to properly sort out this dispute. -- Donald Albury 13:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of case citations and reliance on newspaper articles, it is better to remove the para under WP:BLP considerations, pending further research.--mervyn 19:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Small technical problem with Wikipedia linking.

As I was reading through your excellent article on Ford Open Prison I noticed the following list:

Notable former inmates George Best Lord Brocket Darius Guppy Giovanni di Stefano Andrew Stone Ernest Saunders David Shayler Kenneth Halliwell Dominic Silk (son of fomer Labour MP Robert Kilroy-Silk)

I followed the links therein and noticed that there is no link back from the above article.

Should this be rectified?

Fraud conviction

The Scotsman is not the only source for di Stefano's conviction, the Guardian also reports it (backing his assertion of a successful appeal). We should report both and leave it to the reader to decide which is accurate. If and when he sues The Scotsman we can also report that. As long as we make it clear that the appeal verdict is in dispute between the sources, I don't see a huge problem with it. I also found a corroborating story in The Guardian, and other stories linking the convicted di Stefano and Giovanni di Stefano. The claim it was a cousin appears oly in the Scotsman, I think; the BBC story actually has him citing the conviction as a motivation. Combined with the March 2007 investigation, I think it would be wrong to ignore the fraud case, although of course we must be careful not to go beyond what the sources say. Sunday Times of March 4 also reports the conviction but does not discuss the appeal at all. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If Giovanni de Stefano had an outstanding fraud conviction he would not be practicing law. If the sources don't adequately treat with that fact how can we cite them? Fred Bauder 16:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just passing through, so I thought I'd add this here, rather than get into difficulties adding it to the main article. Deal with it in whatever way you see fit, but according to the Irish Independent, he has a number of fraud convictions in Ireland which pre-date the 1986 conviction. No mention of any of these being overturned on appeal. [4] (requires registration) Anilocra 13:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Journalistic coverage

I can't find the template for "in the news" - this lives on Talk not in the article itself.

---

The contents and handling of this article has attracted journalistic attention. The article which resulted after deletion of material sourced in negatively biased British journalistic reports was termed a "cleaned-up version of the di Stefano entry... - minus all the awkward facts" by the satirical British journal Private Eye.

---

Anyone who can remember what the template is called, please do the needful. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And your evidence for terming these reports "negatively biased" is what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.10.228 (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to read them. The main problem is focusing on negative material which they do not bother to investigate the truth of. Fred Bauder 01:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture?

I think a picture would really help this article, but not being an expert on copyright etc. could someone else please find one which is appropriate? Many thanks! 80.176.74.199 11:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Poorly sourced material

I have removed material derived from journalistic reports which to focus on negative aspects. Much of this information is confused and contradictory. We should wait for more reliable sources regarding the issues raised. A biased source is not a reliable source. Fred Bauder 14:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's rather silly. Material should only be removed when it's clear that the source for it is questionable, not just because it's taken from an article that reflects poorly on the subject. Negative facts are facts too. --Martin Wisse 19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We know how to string together a bunch of negative crap and call it a story. Wikipedia didn't invent that game. Fred Bauder 22:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that these stories have been reported in serious papers makes them relevant. Of course Wikipedia shouldn't repeat them uncritically but it has a duty to mention them. Your attitude appears to be "these allegations aren't proven so we should pretend they were never made". That's not neutral reporting, it is incomplete reporting.

I read these papers regularly and find them good sources. However, the articles which mention Giovanni di Stefano are generally of low quality. I think they are more human interest stories than serious journalism. Thus, spending serious money investigating the loose ends is not worth while. Fred Bauder 20:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

1 - investigating the loose ends is less costly than getting done for libel - I think they'd take care; 2 - it DOESN'T MATTER whether these stories are true or not, we're NOT SAYING they are, the point is that the fact they have appeared is a story IN ITSELF. Sorry to shout but I'm getting fed up with repeating myself. Your refusal to grasp the difference between reporting that allegations were made and endorsing them is beginning to look like wilful obtuseness.

Citations needed - MGM etc.

Can someone with access to a good English law library please provide precise case refs for the following:

1. The citation for Di Stefano's reported March 1986 fraud conviction and appeal(s) if any.

2. The citation for the High Court case mentioned in this 1993 article from "Variety" relating to the early 1990s when Di Stefano was reportedly a business associate of Italian financier Giancarlo Parretti during the latter's ownership of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, see http://www.variety.com/article/VR105726.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

TIA --mervyn 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We need to clear up the ambiguity regarding the name too. Giovanni means John, but it is not absolutely certain from the sources we have that we are talking about the same person. This is really inexcusable. There are court records somewhere. To say nothing of the records concerning the John De Stefano who was imprisoned. We need to find out the UK treats these sorts of records. However, common sense will tell you that if he had a criminal record he would not be licensed. With all the enemies he has, their silence speaks volumes. Fred Bauder 22:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Fred, you removed all reference to the 1986 conviction as "poorly sourced". We have: The Independent; The Guardian, a full profile plus reporting first di Stefano's version and then the version per The Scotsman; The Scotsman itself; an interview with di Stefano by the BBC in which he specifically cites this imprisonment as a motivator (i.e. explicitly identifies himself as the convicted John di Stefano). We give the Scotsman's information in quotes, specifically attributed per WP:ATT with evidence to show that it is disputed by di Stefano, has been disputed in some sources and supported in others. That one paragraph has, I think seven separate sources. Obviously I am missing something here: what part of the text as written is not adequately supported by the sources I included? I discussed this with the OTRS team as well, including Jimmy, and nobody has identified the problem with what I wrote. Please elucidate, as it is a great concern to me that I might be perceiving as neutral and sourced - or at least tolerably so - something you clearly view as unacceptable. We are not asserting that there is a conviction, we are saying that he acknowledges it but claims it was quashed, and documenting the fact that other sources dispute this and have challenged him to prove it. If and when he sues the Grauniad and the Scotsman, we can report that, too.
• As a subsidiary point, the ongoing incident is noted by the Sunday Times and by Mishcon de Reya. The former is a pretty good source, the latter very good. Again, what is the problem, please?

As you can see Mischon de Reya had to climb down and deleted the Sunday Times Report from their website and the Sunday Times themselves being subjected to a Press Complaints Commission had to withdraw their story and apologise: http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NDU3OA== It makes no sense at all trying to attack Di Stefano on matters that are simply not true. He is a lawyer and has no convictions. There are other lines to attack or criticise him but it serves no purpose saying things that are not true about him.

• Thanks in advance for your clarification, Guy (Help!) 13:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We are reporting conflicting information regarding a supposed fraud conviction which might or might not have been overturned about a person who may or may not be the person the article is about. If would not take long for someone on the ground in the UK to figure this out, but seemingly no one has. Fred Bauder 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reversed your deletions of this material. These are proper newspapers and undisputed sources, used without comment in many other Wikipedia articles. Please do not attempt to redelete this material. I understand as an (ex-)lawyer you would like to err on the side of caution, but Wikipedia is not a court of law and these are well established facts which need to be included in this article, as they are of direct relevance to its subject. --Martin Wisse 21:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And what are the facts and what reliable source do you have for them? Fred Bauder 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, and it makes sense, but di Stefano identifies himself as the individual in the BBC interview I cited. He states that it is the reason he feels satisfaction in taking on the system. That, at least, is completely neutral. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what can you do with:

In 1986 Mr Di Stefano was convicted of fraud. He says this was quashed on the second appeal and a sense of injustice remains, making each victory against the system a sweet revenge

— http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4394095.stm

without dragging in other material which contradicts it? Fred Bauder 00:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

DO drag in the material that contradicts it. We have core facts agreed on: he was convicted and his first appeal failed. We report that. We then report that he asserts that his conviction was overturned at a second appeal. If other sources have contradicted this, we report that AS WELL. The idea that because the second appeal is disputed we should not mention the conviction at all is ludicrous. Let's apply your reasoning to, say, the JFK assassination: some people dispute whether Oswald acted alone; by Fred Bauder's standards, that means we shouldn't mention the fact that JFK was killed: after all, how can we mention Oswald without dragging in a bunch of contradictory stuff? That makes as much sense as ignoring di Stefano's fraud conviction.

Di Stefano has NO convictions and that was made clear and conceded by the CPS at the Van Hoogstraten hearings in 2002. He is a man of good character according to the transcripts. The Crown did not challenge that at all because once a conviction is quashed one becomes again of good character and in any court of law one is not permitted to mention a conviction that was subsequently quashed. We have seen his certificate in Italy that he is of no previous conviction and not under investigation. We have been in touch, under the Freedom of Information, with the Department of Justice in Washington and Di Stefano has never been charged, tried or convicted of either a felony or misdemenour in the US. In fact in Iraq he is protected more than any other person by the US Military. He is permitted incredible access to documents and detainees including so called 'high risk terrorist' which if he was anything other than what he states he is would simply not be possible. We have not quite understood actually who or what Di Stefano does but he has been involved in a number of 'situations' which people end up either dead, jailed, and he continues his work. There will be a book on his life published in Italy (unauthorised) which may shed light on many aspects. But to say he is anything other than of good character and a lawyer will only detract from the real object of discovering who or what he actually does.

This is not a court, it's a biographical article. If it's been established that the conviction was quashed then we should of course make that clear, but we still have a duty to mention it - it's a significant event in his life, as he himself has said. Or is your position that Wikipedia should suppress all reference to quashed convictions and cases resulting in acquittal, on the grounds that they wouldn't be mentioned in court? I look forward to reading the new, shorter and duller articles on O J Simpson, Claus von Bulow etc under this extraordinary policy.

Fraud

The Scotsman article refers to original court documents proving that the conviction wasn't overturned, though they don't seem to be published on the website. Cadr 10:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I should have read the previous section. Anyway, it should be enough to mention that the newspapers have made these allegations and Di Stefano denies them. Cadr 10:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this confused and contradictory information harms the reputation of a practicing attorney who obviously would not be allowed to practice if he had an outstanding fraud conviction. Fred Bauder 10:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The newspapers above are the ones who have harmed di Stefano's reputation. To report that these allegations have been made is not to endorse them. Don't you understand that?

There's not really any confusion. He claims that the conviction was overturned, and the one newspaper which has actually checked this out has found that he was lying (the Guardian just reports his claim, and doesn't give any conflicting evidence). Given that this has already been published in Scotland on Sunday, I don't see why the article shouldn't refer to it. Cadr 11:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have confidence in the report that "he was lying". It is very easy to do legal research of such a nature and due to incomplete searching come to a false conclusion. There seems to have been two appeals. They don't mention the second appeal. This will sort itself out fast enough. It is best to error on the side of caution. I know it seems presumptuous to maintain our standards exceed those of British newspapers, but they do. We are an encyclopedia. Fred Bauder 12:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source stating that there was a second appeal? 87.80.6.3 14:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Kind of:

In 1986 Mr Di Stefano was convicted of fraud. He says this was quashed on the second appeal and a sense of injustice remains, making each victory against the system a sweet revenge

— http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4394095.stm

Fred Bauder 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. Let's report all of this. If di Stefano asserts the conviction was overturned then he presumably admits it took place, which makes your insistence that Wikipedia shouldn't mention it at all even more ludicrous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.157.252 (talk • contribs)

Klaus Barbie?

Was he also Klaus Barbie's defence lawyer? Or was that someone else?SmokeyTheCat 13:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Caligula
• Jack the Ripper
• Charles Manson
• Pol Pot

I don't have a source for any of those. Fred Bauder 20:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

hahahahahahah I hope the above was a joke :) Gareth E Kegg 09:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy tag

I'm going to remove this, as there's not a lot than can be disputed given the current set of citations. If someone wants to replace it, fine, but please discuss clearly on this page in this section precisely what is in dispute. The Rambling Man 14:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I have temporarily protected this page pending my return. Sorry to have done a mass reversion of so much. Fred Bauder 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are perfectly normal cited references being removed? The Rambling Man 21:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And the protection is for who's benefit? Only a sporadic editor (who claims to be the subject of the article) is removing sections (which you've now done again despite reversions of non-commented blanking of sections by said subject of the article) and a couple of more established users are trying to re-instate them. Who are you protecting this article against? The Rambling Man 21:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I am also involved now. Should we take this to the arbcom? Lol. Seriously there are issues here and while I fully respect Fred (and know him well in wikipedia) I tend to take the side of The Rambling Man and Julien Foster in this one. So where "do" we go from here? SqueakBox 22:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the first move should be answers to the following:

• Why are cited sections being removed without explanation by Fred Bauder?
• Why are The Independent and The Scotsman no longer reliable sources, in Fred's words "poorly referenced"?
• Why is Fred Bauder removing exactly the same sections as Giovanni himself?
• Why has Fred protected the page after removing these sections, a bit hit-and-run?

I'm not interested in wheel-warring, obviously, but if the sections removed had reliable sources to cite them, irrespective of whether Fred or Giovanni want them in the article, there doesn't seem a valid reason for removing them. If anything, Fred or Giovanni ought to find counter citations, or tag the page with a POV template, not just blanket remove sections without explanation. The Rambling Man 06:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that the newspaper stories are some years old and leave out the issue of whether his conviction was quashed. The facts are a bit hazy on this and requests for information (see above) haven't been forthcoming. This article seems to be a special case where WP:BLP is being very strictly enforced, so reports about his conviction which can't be balanced by info about his appeal have been removed.--mervyn 11:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is only three years old and comes from a reliable source, would you say it couldn't be used in this article? The Rambling Man 11:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Since when is an attorney in good standing "fraudster Giovanni Di Stefano"? Why the Guardian is engaged in a smear campaign is for them to explain. It is not for us to repeat the smear. Fred Bauder 22:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think removing sections of the article without explanation is tantamount to censorship. As I've already said we can state that this is the opinion of the Guardian. Please unprotect the page, it seems that you were protecting it against no-one in particular as you reverted my reversion (wheel-war-esque), protected and then disappeared. Odd behaviour. The Rambling Man 22:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say use it, but i personally am not the one threatened with being sued! It is interesting that this article postdates the Hoogstraten case. I am sure the Guardian has good lawyers (vide Aitken!), but there are still some contradictions here -- what about the issue of the "second appeal"; and the issue of how a convicted fraudster could practise law? --mervyn 13:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree, there are contradictions, but I think that removing one side of the argument isn't the best approach. Jimbo Wales said a while ago that Wikipedia stating something as fact was dangerous but Wikipedia stating that, for example, the Guardian or the BBC stated something as fact would be fine. Does this approach still apply? The Rambling Man 13:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has on a number of occasions sought to reinstate information/improve it/find different sources, I confess that I have found the experience of seeing the work disappear somewhat dispiriting. In particular, I dislike the way in which the case decided by Mr Justice Jackson is cited...but not the remarks of Lord Justice Rose in the Court of Appeal about that very case. A pedantic lawyer (and there are those who are aware of my profession!) would say: "Oh well, those were remarks made by Rose LJ during argument, not during the actual decision so they don't count". For my part, I found the comments made by Rose LJ extremely compelling. What is di Stefano's qualification? He says avvocato. When did he qualify and where? He does not provide an answer. In my view, there is a public interest in exposing those who purport to have a professional qualification which they lack, because there is plainly a risk that they will prey on vulnerable people.

The same is true of the conviction. There was an appeal. It was unsuccessful. If this man's conviction had really been quashed, does anyone seriously doubt that he would be able to provide evidence of that? He has not done so. It seems to me, to use further legal terminology, that if there is a conviction in existence then the burden of proof lies on the person convicted to show that in fact the conviction was quashed. A conviction is a matter of record. So, for that matter, is an appeal. As far as I know, neither the conviction nor the appeal (not being of any interest to the profession) made their way into the law reports. Thus, one would not expect to find records in the English law reports. But if di Stefano is convinced that his conviction was quashed, he will have evidence of that; and whilst he no doubt has the view that journalists are all against him, there will ALWAYS be a journalist sufficiently independent and bloody-minded to want to prove all the other journalists wrong...if there's the evidence to prove it. And here, there isn't. Julien Foster 23:30 15/08/2007

So while I wait for Fred to come back from his holiday and unprotect the page himself (I could do it but I'm not getting into that), what can we agree to do to the article so that it provides a more balanced, less biased (in either direction) view of di Stefano's colourful career? The Rambling Man 07:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How the RamblesMan does not like at all having anything written about him and its so clear now that he has something personal against Di Stefano. He edits out anyone who comments against his views yet has the audacity to insisit on placing trash on the article wich is clearly innacurate because, he says, that is opinion and comment. Well there is our comment that RamblesMan has something very personal against Di Stefano making his views thus superflous. Its interesting RamblingMan even edits out the comments from the history section. Seems we must have touched upon a sore point. GAS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.18.136.70 (talk • contribs).

Okay, since I'm sick of reverting your continual trolling, I leave it here for others to see your approach. It may be worth you noting that all I did to the article was to revert a wholesale and unexplained removal of content by the subject of the article himself. This is considered a conflict of interest and because of the lack of explanation it was reverted. I added no additional information to the article, so your accusation of "placing trash" on the article is plainly inaccurate. I have no personal interest in this article other than ensuring it is unbiased and presents both sides of the argument. Contrary to your final accusation, I have not edited out comments from the history section, I don't know what you're talking about. Do not continue to accuse me of such actions without substantiation. The Rambling Man 15:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The editing of the article was carried out by the founder and by its responsible editors. This is NOT the subject of the article and let it be known that we have as much against Di Stefano as you obviously also do the difference being that if you wish to attack Di Stefano do so please with proven facts and not newspaper articles that (a) have subsequently been subject to apologies as Mischon De Rey and Sunday Times (b) are subject to criminal proceedings. We have seen what you posted which is clear as daylight carries some personal grudge. Do not thus be surprised when someone begins to question your motives. If you want to criticise Di Stefano there many ways of doing so but accusing him of not being who he says he is frankly is absurd and if YOU are truly a lawyer yourself you must know that. He visits, appears and represents those indicted in Iraq and has access that even Prime Ministers do not have to detainees in Iraq. I also have seen his Bar Admission Cards to a number of National Bars and have seen him in Court in Rome, Milan and Bolzano. If he choses not to say where he obtained his degree or how ( I like Fred Bauder have seen such) then its a matter for him. It is not anyones business except the client and the court. Its no business of journalists unless he choses and all we are doing is making him more noted and famous by questioning such whilst he grins like anything at all of us. You are not looking for a balanced article as I and others have noted the postings. There is an 'unauthorised' book coming out on him in Italy and UK at Xmas which I have read snippets and frankly it answers a lot...in more ways than none and explains his incredible access to the Security Services data banks. GAS

I'm becoming sick of your accusations...

• You claim I have obviously have something against di Stefano. I do not.
• I do not wish to "attack" him as you claim, I want a fully detailed and unbiased article.
• You question my motives? I replaced material removed without explanation. That is all' I have done.
• I have not "criticised" di Stefano once as you claim.
• Your access to material which is yet to be published is fascinating but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so until the material is published we have to work with currently published citation.

If you continue to attack me personally I will consider your edits to be vandalism. I could have protected this page from being edited but I didn't. I've simply asked for an explanation for a removal of the material in question. Please do not use this as a soapbox. The Rambling Man 15:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems that we agree for once. DO NOT USE THIS DISCUSSION AS A SOAPBOX. Heed your own, please, very good and sensible advice. We have seen what you have written on the main article and it is wholly biased. If you are looking for an unbiased article then you have it in the format that exists protected by Mr Bauder. However, it seems you wish to include matters that only scandalise Di Stefano without a single piece of positive. We wish to include material (such as his connections with the Security Services which explain why he has untold access to detainees) which is without doubt fact. The articles by The Guardian and Scotsman have NEVER been reprinted and are subject to criminal actions. The Daily Record wrote articles that Di Stefano is (a) responsible for the murder of 25,000 Bosnians in Screbenica and (b) that he was at a Mafia meeting in Scicily in 1991. Both are subject to criminal actions because they are untrue as untru as him not being a lawyer so we question why you wish to include in your article such absurdities? Please do not threaten us with your vandalism because you are becoming as Di Stefano who sues in the Italian Criminal Courts anyone who goes 'over the top' on allegations against him. We are entitled to our view on this discussion page and are entitled to question people's motives as you question ours. Or has this section become a dictatorial policy that anyone not agreeing with the RamblinMan is reported as vandalism? It is these kinds of threats that lead us to the 'infrences' that there is something personal? You as a lawyer must know that. GAS (and I am a reporter in Italy who HAS indeed reproduced material that the Guardian and Scotsman printed in a major Italian daily and it was wrong so I am not afraid of writing controversies and have criticised Di Stefano more than anyone)

Please contribute in a positive sense. Your ranting is becoming too much. I don't care who you purport to be, this is a Wiki and as such anyone can edit it. Your views include "facts" such as:

• "Di Stefano must have knicked (sic) my wife"
• "I include matters that only scandalise Di Stefano"
• "...you wish to include in your article..." - it's not my article.
• Who ever said I was a lawyer?

Interesting that you edit anonymously, you might be advised to get an account in case these pages do become protected. I'd just like to report both sides of the story, and if you are, as you state, a journalist, then you should be able to help rather than simply censor. For your information, I have nothing more to say on this matter. The Rambling Man 17:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

TO: MR RAMBLINGMAN FROM: GIOVANNI DI STEFANO You state that 'my cronies' have been trolling you. I have NO idea what trolling means but REST well assured that neither myself and neither my 'cronies' (I have none anyway) are (whatever it means) trolling you. If there is anything to say rest well assured I have the time, money and inclination to say it myself in pro per and require no external assistance. Most of the material requested by you and others is frankly absurd and a joke and I normally allow anyone to write whatever they desire about me save for truly absurd and boring pieces of mendacity. So please have the kind respect not to make allegations on the 'talk' page referring to my 'cronies' as it will certainly attract comment from myself in pro per which may not be to anyone's advantage. Enjoy the rest of the day. GDS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pnazionale (talk • contribs) 13:28:01, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

You too Mr di Stefano. For the last time I'll point you and the many anonymous IP's editing here to WP:COI. And this is the last you'll hear from me ever. I wish you luck, I've never done anything but seek a fair and mutually acceptable version of this article but several IPs have attacked me (e.g. "...di Stefano must have knicked your wife...") so I'm refraining from participating here from now on. If it's so important to Jimbo and Fred then it must be a really good reason for it. Good luck to you Giovanni! The Rambling Man 17:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

TO: RAMBLINGMAN FROM: GIOVANNI DI STEFANO I am truly sorry for what some idiots have written on this page and rest assured that if I discover ANYONE meaning ANYONE using such tactics against anyone who criticises me I will take action. I will not permit those that criticise me or even defame me to be insulted so although I have no idea who these people are although I know the journalist with the initials GAS from an Italian National they should not write such rubbish about you and if they have no stamina to apologise to you I will on their behalf. I am just a lawyer that carries out a job in dangerous and often unfair circumstances. I currently represent Tariq Aziz, Humad Humadi and see them regularly as well as Al majid (Chemical Ali). You can see my trips to Baghdad on YouTube. Both Aziz and Humadi are 4 years in jail without charges. It s the unfairness of the system that drives not anything else. If you wish any information on me as I have with Mr Bauder and Mr Wales you can contact me direct gds1955@tiscali.it and I will reply to you personally. With kindest regards and apologies. Giovanni Di Stefano —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pnazionale (talk • contribs) 17:41:33, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

If he were just a prominent attorney making complaints about his chickens coming home to roost, we would probably just stiff him, but he has a valid point; there have been repeated smears printed in the mainstream British press. Slick smears that may not be actionable, but smears nevertheless. They don't belong in an encyclopedia. Fred Bauder 17:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This source does not address Di Stefano's qualifications to practice. The judge, for whatever reason, neglected to query Di Stefano regarding his qualifications. If he had, Di Stefano would have been required to produce them. Fred Bauder 00:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Power to require a European lawyer to verify his status

12. A competent authority may at any time request a person seeking to provide any services to verify his status as a European lawyer.

13. Where a request has been made under article 12, the person to whom it is made shall not, except to the extent (if any) allowed by the competent authority making the request, be entitled to provide services in the United Kingdom until he has verified his status as a European lawyer to the satisfaction of that authority.

14. For the purposes of articles 12 and 13, a competent authority is -

(a) where the services which the person concerned seeks to provide are reserved to advocates or barristers, or in any case where the person concerned claims to be a barrister established in practice in the Republic of Ireland, the Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar, the Faculty of Advocates, or the Benchers of the Inn of Court of Northern Ireland, according to the part of the United Kingdom concerned; or

(b) where subparagraph (a) does not apply, the Law Society, the Law Society of Scotland, or the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland, according to the part of the United Kingdom concerned; or

(c) in any case, any court, tribunal or public authority before which the person concerned seeks to provide services. [5] New version effective July 1, 2007 Not sure if there are any changes which would affect this matter.

The problem is that the Scotsman article raises doubt that Di Stefano is entitled to practice without investigating or addressing the underlying question, does he have a license to practice in Italy? This misleading posture is what disqualifies it as a reliable source. Fred Bauder 00:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred, it does strike me as strange that you made one contribution while you were away and it was to remove a chunk of material here without explanation and then protect the page. I've been heavily trolled by Stefano's cronies since then and I don't appreciate it. I'd like you to unprotect the article as there's really no justification for it right now to be protected. I would do it myself but I don't wheel war. I won't be participating in further discussion here. The Rambling Man 09:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing strange about it. I've been asked by Jimmy Wales to monitor this article. I didn't realize the situation would rapidly deteriorate in just 3 weeks. Fred Bauder 10:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

TO: MR RAMBLINGMAN FROM: GIOVANNI DI STEFANO You state that 'my cronies' have been trolling you. I have NO idea what trolling means but REST well assured that neither myself and neither my 'cronies' (I have none anyway) are (whatever it means) trolling you. If there is anything to say rest well assured I have the time, money and inclination to say it myself in pro per and require no external assistance. Most of the material requested by you and others is frankly absurd and a joke and I normally allow anyone to write whatever they desire about me save for truly absurd and boring pieces of mendacity. So please have the kind respect not to make allegations on the 'talk' page referring to my 'cronies' as it will certainly attract comment from myself in pro per which may not be to anyone's advantage. Enjoy the rest of the day. GDS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pnazionale (talk • contribs) 13:29:39, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Giovanni di Stefano

Yesterday you undid my reversal of Fred Bauder's edits on Giovanni di Stefano (history here) because of BLP concerns. What I do not get is what these concerns are, as the disputed content in question is sourced and true. As you know this has been a longstanding problem, as either the subject of the article himself, or his friends have been objecting to Wikipedia's coverage of him, notably his conviction for fraud, a conviction only disputed by di Stefano himself. As said, this conviction is sourced and was widely reported in the UK press, and it has been widely reported that this conviction is of di Stefano, even if he himself denies it. My understanding of BLP is that sourced facts like these, even if negative, should be kept in the article. Am I missing something? --Martin Wisse 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to email me. The issue is fairly nuanced.--Jimbo Wales 17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nuanced! Hah! Not wrong. Nuanced in the way that defusing mines is nuanced. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've posted something at Talk:Giovanni_di_Stefano about this (and copied this exchange there - hope that's ok, please revert if offensive.) Privatemusings 01:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks

I have some interest in helping this article improve. I also note that it's a bit of a minefield, with strong feelings all round. For that reason, I think I'll start with some small points here. First impressions;

• The article doesn't flow very well - several (very short) sections could possibly be combined into prose

• I'm afraid the fraud conviction for me is verifiable, relevant and interesting - I believe right now it's a bit of a glaring / embarrassing omission. I also fully understand the paramount need to use iron-clad sources, and sensitivity in how we go about inclusion.

• Perhaps his recent forays into youtube might be interesting, and lighten the tone a little - his application for a pardon for Dr. Crippen is quite amusing, pleasant viewing and speaks volumes about the subject of this article, his methods, and motivations.

Privatemusings 22:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A Proposal.

Here's a first draft reworking; User:Privatemusings/diStefano - discussion would probably be best held here, but I think it's an improvement. Privatemusings 00:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to create an alternative article. How about making the one we have flow better, but without violating Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Fred Bauder 02:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - my intention isn't to fork at all, nor is it really an alternative article - it's all the same material reworked with a few extras, sometimes I feel a rebuild helps, I just didn't want to make a change without running it past editors first. It's hard to tell from your post if you've taken a look - are you saying you'd prefer I'd make the changes here so we can discuss them?, or are you saying that you've read it, but feel it has BLP issues? - if that's the case, then, well - that's exactly why I wanted to show it here first - could you elucidate? - thanks Privatemusings 12:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your article includes information which has repeatedly been inserted into the article but removed due to lack of an adequate source. Fred Bauder 14:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fred, deleting a page citing 'libellous content' would be incredibly serious were it not frankly such an out there thing to assert. Would you mind emailing me a copy of my work? - would you agree that an article RfC is a good next step? To be honest, I'm finding it hard to understand where you're coming from. Privatemusings 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't do that due to potential legal liability. I have no interest in being a co-defendant. Fred Bauder 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Ok, but that's very odd. I presume you haven't 'oversighted' the edit, so it will remain visible to site administrators - would you mind if I asked an anonymous admin to forward it to me? - Perhaps you could do this yourself of course. Privatemusings 00:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this not an acceptable source?

I was wondering why The Scotsman is not considered an acceptable source in this article. I will let Mr di Stefano's supporters read this but there are facts in these articles such as 'he was Harold Shipman's lawyer' which has deleted for violating WP:BLP. In what way? I believe the facts speak for themselves. The Scotsman is considered a trustworthy newspaper. [6] [7]

This source shows also shows that Mr di Stefano has a vendetta against The Scotsman's sister paper Scotland on Sunday, threatening to sue it for defamation. It would be a sad day when a maverick who doesn't want people to know the real truth about him is allowed to censor Wikipedia. [8]

AlexSloan 22:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Those articles are their problem. Don't make it ours. Do you honestly believe that an attorney in good standing has an outstanding fraud conviction? Fred Bauder 00:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well according to a wide variety of indisputably reliable sources he does - and that's all I'd like to note - that a wide variety of reliable sources have claimed that he has a conviction for fraud. It's very strange to deny that! Privatemusings 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Giovanni di Stefano is not a 'qualified lawyer' in the United Kingdom and acts as a "next friend" to his clients. He clearly does have some experience of representing people in legal actions. The Law Society has a searchable register of solicitors which may be worth checking. Sam Blacketer 00:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just checked and Giovanni di Stefano is not on the roll of solicitors, nor is he a Barrister. Sam Blacketer 00:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My reading is that many intrepid investigative reporters for highly reputable UK media have tried, for many years, to find any evidence of qualification whatsoever, and have come up short. It shouldn't surprise us that we find it difficult! Privatemusings 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the Sunday Times had an article about an investigation back in the March 2007 that included this material:

• Italian-born di Stefano, 51, who was convicted of fraud at the Old Bailey in 1986 and jailed for five years, earned the nickname "the Devil's Advocate", having had a who's who of British and international crime as clients.
• Di Stefano, who says he is an "avvocato", an Italian-qualified lawyer, which gives him the right to practise in any European Union country, was recently the victim of a burglary at his home in Rome where his legal practice is based.
  • "Saddam's lawyer accused of Pounds 3m fraud on clients;" Daniel Foggo and Carl Fellstrom. Sunday Times. London (UK): Mar 4, 2007. pg. 7

It subsequently ran this correction (in full):

• The story "Saddam lawyer accused of Pounds 3m fraud on clients" (News, March 4) reported that Giovanni di Stefano was being investigated over claims that he had defrauded some of his clients of Pounds 3m. We have been asked to make clear that Mr di Stefano denies this figure, but accepts police have received a complaint from a client regarding a dispute over Pounds 20,000. Mr di Stefano says he does not feel in fear for his life due to his former clients.
  • "Correction", Sunday Times. London (UK): Jun 17, 2007. pg. 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is yet another reliable source mentioning a fraud conviction. I have written a proposal for a hopefully non controversial way of including this material, which Fred has unfortunately deleted as 'libellous content' - I hope he will at least allow Will's edit above to remain. Privatemusings 01:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And i would like to echo my request for an administrator to anonymously email me the work from User:Privatemusings/diStefano , discretion is assured, and I would appreciate it. Privatemusings 01:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Two years earlier, The Independent ran an article questioning his credentials:

• Detectives have been investigating whether Mr Di Stefano has broken the law by allegedly claiming to be a British accredited solicitor or barrister.
• Mr Di Stefano's qualifications remain a mystery to many. Questioned about his qualification, Mr Di Stefano, 50, would only say that he was an 'Italian lawyer'. 'I have never said I'm a solicitor or barrister,' he told The Independent.
• In Britain he has said that he only acts as a legal representative for his clients " a title anyone without any qualifications can use.
• A spokesman for the Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, said: 'We have no evidence that he has any legal status whatsoever.
  • "Saddam's defender accused of falsely claiming to be solicitor" Jason Bennetto Crime Correspondent. The Independent. London (UK): May 31, 2005. pg. 14

There's no indication that he was charged in this matter.

A year before The Sun ran a very negative profile, including these assertions:

• THEY say you can judge a man by the company he keeps. That is all you need to know about lawyer Giovanni di Stefano. His clients include pop pervert Jonathan King, Serbian ex- president Slobodan Milosevic - and Saddam Hussein. He is one of Britain's most notorious lawyers - but he has served three years for fraud and was appointed an honorary general of a Yugoslavian militia accused of ethnic cleansing.
• During the Eighties he was sentenced to five years in jail for fraud while working as a currency trader selling dollars to Zimbabwe and South Africa. After a 78 day trial an Old Bailey judge branded him "one of nature's swindlers, swindling without a scruple of conscience, motivated by personal greed and pretension." He served just three years and four months for the offence. In 1990 di Stefano was deported from the US as an undesirable alien after becoming embroiled in a failed deal to buy Hollywood studio MGM. The controversial plan led to two of di Stefano's partners being charged with fraud, tax evasion and money laundering.
• Even so, despite the big names on his client list, 55-year-old di Stefano is accused by legal regulators the Law Society of lacking any formal legal qualifications. A Society spokesman says: "As far as we are aware, Mr di Stefano has no legal qualifications or status whatever." Di Stefano claims he is a member of the American Bar Association and has a degree in law - but refuses to say where from. He says: "Who f***ing cares? I have fought some of the best legal brains in the UK. "If I'm unqualified, what on earth does that tell you about them? They should make me the f***ing Lord Chief Justice." Qualified or not, Italian-born di Stefano - dubbed "Don Giovanni" - successfully helped ruthless property tycoon Nicholas van Hoogstraten to win an appeal against a manslaughter conviction on a technicality. He also acted for serial killer Dr Harold Shipman as well as timeshare fraudster John "Goldfinger" Palmer, M25 road-rage murderer Kenneth Noye and Jeremy Bamber, who shot dead five members of his family.
  • "The devil's advocate" Harry Macadam. The Sun. London (UK): Aug 23, 2005. pg. 24

I'd say he isn't popular with the British press. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is good stuff Will - would you mind taking a look at User:Privatemusings/diStefano which includes some of it quite calmly.... Privatemusings 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The independent repeated the mention of fraud again in 2007.Geni 12:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Irish times April 20, 2006 again 1986 fraud conviction.Geni 12:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

He gets around new zealand herald again 1986 fraud conviction.Geni 12:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This one dates from 1992 again fraud 1986.Geni 12:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A source for the 1986 conviction of John di Stefano

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1996/193.html is a report on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute. It is a copy of a Judgment of the Divisional Court before the then Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Bingham, in the matter of an unnamed Solicitor appealing against an order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal of the Law Society. The tribunal had found him guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor in that he employed as a clerk one John di Stefano, who was not suitable to be appointed. The reasons why this John di Stefano was not suitable to be appointed are given in the judgment at paragraph 4. Sam Blacketer 01:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You stupid muppet (insult maybe to a muppet) how can you prove this is him??? This was an estate agent called John Di Stefano who was convicted at the same time. You people really are seriously stupid inventing things and its what the real Di Stefano thrives upon and makes what he maybe guilty of questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.219.88 (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, ok - it's probably best we don't try and prove anything - that wouldn't even be allowed here, because according to our policies we can't produce original research. What I (and maybe others) would like to do is just write an article using all the best available reliable sources. Oh - and try to avoid referring to editors as stupid muppets, we don't want to upset editors or muppets! Play nice. Privatemusings 09:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 'Unsigned user' is right. This is not a solid source for this claim. Re: the previous section - The newspaper articles are questionable. The press often don't have time to properly check things out.. that's why they come on Wikipedia for info and at other times award each other Pulitzers when they get stories right - good publicity for the industry, in times when needing to be right matters. It is understandable that Jimbo Wales is concerned about this particular biography. But why should we waiver over using sources (BBC, Scotsman etc) that would be according to the rules would be acceptable in other articles? We must interpret them as being reliable or authoritative at different times? It should be said that the more pressure we are put under, the more the (normally ignored) overlappings of original research and outcomes from editor collaboration begin to show. We do need to get it right, and at the the same time defend wikipedia from 'censorship' or curtailment and stand our ground when vague threats of legal action occur. ---maxrspct ping me 10:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing vague about the legal threats or the financial and legal ability to carry them out. Fred Bauder 13:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The newspapers are being published under british law. If anyone was going to be sued it would be them but they feel confident enough to repeatedly raise the subject.Geni 14:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhuh. I think it's just brinkmanship on his part. Can so many newspapers be wrong? He is banned from entering countries because of a fraud conviction!! --maxrspct ping me 13:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Speculation should not be added to BLPs. The sources presented seems somewhat obscure as it relates to the provenance of the information. Best we cold do is to write that there is speculation about this alleged conviction, and move all the text about it to the footnotes with direct quotes from these newspapers. That way we put the legal burden fully on these sources rather than our project, without being accused of censorship. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Which source are you finding to be obscure?Geni 15:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not the sources, Geni. The alleged facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand you. It is undeniable fact that a John di Stefano was convicted of fraud in 1986. It is also undeniable that a very large number of newspaper articles have been published which identify that John di Stefano as being Giovanni di Stefano, the subject of this article. The dispute lies in the mutually contradictory assertions that (a) John di Stefano convicted of fraud in 1986 is not Giovanni di Stefano; (b) the 1986 conviction has since been overturned in an appeal. Are there any reliable sources for either (a) or (b)? Sam Blacketer 15:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The subject has been reported by quite a collection of newspapers for over a decade. I fail to see how this qualifies as obscure.Geni 15:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See the questions presented by Sam above. If it was not obscure, we would not have been having this conversation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)