Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)

Try Again

Let's try again. Please respect Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Please don't link to sources which imply information we lack a good source for. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice that there is a link on the Wikipedia entry for Ford Open Prison to this article, but no mention of Ford Open Prison within the article. This is in contrast to other entries under Ford Open Prison, for example, Ernest Saunders, who links from there and has reference to Ford Open Prison within his article. Please could you explain this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.171.246 (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

I posted this before, but the page has been re-created. There does not seem to be any evidence that Stefano acted for Hussein. The reference cited previously was to an interview in which Stefano claimed that he represented him. The news reports of Hussein's trial make no reference to Stefano in their list of his legal representatives. Stefano himself supported his assertion that he acted for Hussein by a) reference to his video diary in which he confirmed that he acted for Hussein and b) referring to the fact that he had bodyguards when he visited Bhagdad. If anyone can cite a reliable source that states that he acted for Hussein then he can be reinstated in the list of clients. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish, there is masses of evidence that he acted for Saddam, you need to make the effort to research before unilaterally deleting easily sourced material in a controversial article that merely ruins the little NPOV we have. eg [1] [2]. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is this: If there were ANY evidence that he acted for Hussein, wouldn't he have cited it previously? Or shouldn't another editor cite it if they believe there is any? Squeakbox, I would be quite happy if you found a reference for this from a reliable source such as BBC News, and by evidence, I don't mean "Mr Di Stefano says he represents Saddamm Hussein". DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There is still a problem with the article as it is using the CNN transcript as citation for his acting for Hussein. Is there no independent corroboration of this? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

How about [3] and [4]. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Van Hoogstraten

I can't find any evidence Di Stefano acted for Nicholas van Hoogstraten. The reference for this was a 2002 Guardian article in which a hopeful Di Stefano turns up at the Old Bailey on the day of his sentencing claiming to have "received a phone call saying that he, Mr Hoogenstraten [sic], sought advice on the outcome of his trial" - there being no mention that Mr Hoogenstraten made the call himself, and even admitting "I have never met him before in my life". He claims to be due to lead van Hoogstraten's appeal, whereas the BBC report on the appeal in 2003 states that the much more probable figure of Geoffrey Cox QC represented the jailed property tycoon.

Once again, until anyone can find a reliable, first hand source for the assertion that he represented Van Hoogstraten, this should be kept out of the article. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source. Why are you so anti di Stefano? That is the real quesion. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not anti him - I think he's a colourful character and I quite enjoy his contribution to our media. If anything, I am anti sloppy journalism. I just think that the article needs to be accurate. I was not questioning the reliability of The Guardian as a source, in fact I was using its article to support my suggestion that there was no evidence that Di Stefano acted for 'Mr Hoogenstraten'. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What a prize wally is this Farmborough thing if its his real name. The whole case in the High Court regarding my dad (Regina (Van Hoogstraten) v Governor of Belmarsh Prison [2003] 1 WLR 264) which is always quoted if this Farmborough man actually bothered to read is is ABOUT the right for my dad to represent Nick which dad won! It is the same with Saddam Hussein it is obvious that Farmborough (if its his real name which I doubt as most of the anti DS editors have no guts to come out in the open save a few) is very much against dad. I think that my dad sent documents from the US District Court and others to Squeakbox and I would ask him to publish these. as dad is in Iraq right now and back tomorrow I am sure that when those documents are published by Squeaqbox this wally Farmborough will, one hopes, have to apologise. Its a good job he went to a private school in England or so he says as there is no evidence of that but frankly his ability to research properly sucks!!!! MSDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.169.84 (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This personal attack has been brought to you by an anonymous IP. -- Donald Albury 12:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not anonymous I am the son of Giovanni Di Stefano and if you read carefully what I said especially about the personal attacks by Farmborough on my father and the citation regarding the High Court case that a child of three could have figured out you will find it is accurate and no more an attack on anyone than what is occuring on this article against a living and practising lawyer. Michele Santino Di Stefano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.214.136 (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well to summarise what I was saying originally, the statement that he acted for Van Hoogstraaten was not supported by the article cited as its source. Rather than call someone a wally, wouldn't it simply have been better to have replaced the reference to the Guardian Article with a reference to the Belmarsh Prison one? There is no need for anyone to get cross, why not just improve the page? That is after all what we are all here for...isn't it? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do feel there is work pending on this one and that we must treat di Stefano sympathetically and trust sources that abundantly say he was Saddam's lawyer, is Van Hoogstraten's lawyer etc. I have been planning on doing stuff and got distracted (by work and another issue on wikipedia). Well I will try and get something together, possibly using a temp. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

He is being treated sympathetically. No one is trying to use private eye as a source.Geni 22:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think GDS thinks that, and re our living biography policy I believe we have a duty to treat him sympathetically. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

His opinion is an irrelivance. Given what the article currently excludes it is currently sympathetic to the point of being in violatation of NPOV.Geni 23:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a duty to treat him sympathetically. We have a duty to insure that the article about him has a neutral point of view, that it does not give undue weight to minor or peripheral issues, and that it does not contain unsourced or poorly sourced material that is detrimental to him. -- Donald Albury 15:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is the one. Certain people, though, are bitterly opposed to NPOV here, which of itself demands sympathetic treatment. We are not a troll site but your first comment, Donald, appears to be trolling. please re-read our policies as you appear to have a poor understanding of them. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

When are you going to start then???? MSDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.239.132 (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Soon enough, this article is a disgrace and some people call that NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to make it NPOV have been met with repeated deletiion of both the article and the talk page (in violation of the GFDL mind). Still if you insist on trying you might want to start by looking into that gap between the late 80s and 1993.Geni 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

requested protection

I have requested that this page be protected again to forestall anymore edit warring. This article is a minefield of BLP problems and edit warring over controversial issues just simply can't be allowed. ^Avruchtalk 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be wise. It would be helpful if editors could plough through checking the facts, because I just picked two points at random that I was interested in and followed them through, and found them to be built on very shaky ground. This shouldn't turn into another Pedro Lopez. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How long for. I certainly wish to keep working with this article, adding new information to it. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Its protected for a week. ^Avruchtalk 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Requested again, same reason. Avruch ^T 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"He also has founded a political party"

Does registering yourself as leader of a political party with the Electoral Commission mean the same thing as founding a political party? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For someone who went to private school and is a self professed know it all Mr F you actually know very little and seem incapable of proper research save trying your silly best to defame my father so why don't you have the courage to e mail my father your full contact details as others have in the past who have had the courage to do so and assume your own responsabilities for your petty little actions that frankly amaze even a young man as me. MSDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.217.3 (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we confine ourselves to discussion on the article please? There are rules here about civility. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, absolutely, after all how else would one found a political party other than by registering it with the electoral commission, I am at a bit of a loss as to what you mean, David. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I wondered whether this was an idea that was just proposed but never came to fruition, particularly as there weren't any candidates in the 2005 General Election. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well when that is sourced we can re-add it too. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well know we know why you have it against my father Mr Farmborough because you work for VanDerPumps Solicitors in London. If you look at the Electoral Commission Website you will see scores of political parties but what you are trying to do is to rubbish anything my father has the courage to do that people like you, who purportedly went to private school, have no guts to do. This is a talk page and please will you answer our firms e mail as we are a little tired of your trying to minimise all that people do. MSDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.217.3 (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Any two people who are prepared to pay £150 can register as a political party in the UK. See [5]. All registration means is that electoral candidates are allowed to include a party name on the ballot paper if they stand in an election. The concept of registration didn't even exist in UK law before 2000, so the question, "how else would one found a political party other than by registering it with the electoral commission?" is absurd. Political parties existed before this date; they just didn't have statutary recognition. And yes, we can look at the Electoral Commission website and see that all sorts of groups are registered, but don't exist as political parties in any meaningful sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments seem based on original research based on your opinion of the matter whereas what interests us is verifiable reliable sources. Can you, for instance, back up your claim that "all sorts of groups are registered, but don't exist as political parties in any meaningful sense", I take it your absurd isnt verifiable but if you can do so then please do. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I provided references to substantiate my comments. The first link shows that any two people with £150 can register a political party, and the second (if you look down the list and check out the parties there) shows that there are loads of "vanity" parties there - just see if you can find any sources to substantiate the real-life existance of most of them. For the fact that there was no statutary recognition of political parties in the UK before 2000 see "Forman, F. N. (2002). Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom. Routledge. pp. p. 283. ISBN 0415230357. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)". Do you deny that political parties existed in the UK before this act? If not then there clearly are ways to "found a political party other than by registering it with the electoral commission", and all of the major UK political parties were founded in these other ways. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the original research is in how you interpret the information, not the information itself, for instance assuming that vanity parties are not legitimate political parties or assuming that because the procedure for founding political parties was different before 2000 that this should somehow affect the way parties are founded since this date. If 2 people can found a political party for 150 quid that means that "founded" can refer to 2 people with a few quid who register a party and doesnt say have to refer to the way either parties were founded before 2000 or how well known parties such as the SDP or Goldsmith's party were found. Is this clear? Hope so. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll give you "founded", and I've changed the wording in the article to clarify how the party was founded. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a particularly delicate article on a living person so we have to make sure the sources back up our statements. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Drug dealers

This not only confirms him as Saddam's lawyer but also brings up this interesting case of the UK gov trying to take assets of suspects rather then convicted criminals, and shoulsd certainly be added when and if the article gets unlocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a press release by someone close to di Stefano so probably not independent enough to decide the saddam thing.Geni 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Now is the time for interested parties to step forward and resolve any differences, not afterwards when the article becomes unlocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read this page with interest and would note two things. Firstly the only evidence that we see of this man representing Saddam comes from himself or unverifiable sources. Secondly I think we have a much larger issue to look at for example his criminal convictions - I would give you this article as an example of good research;

http://news.scotsman.com/giovannidistefano/Giovanni-Di-Stefano-The-Truth.2469479.jp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.10.199 (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another 'stronzo' that cannot see further than his nose who hides behind numbers. All those that have defamed my father have been sued in Italy and you will see just how efficacious the law here is as others found out recently. Look at the founder of Wikipedia instead of my father who works harder than all of those that have nothing else to do but sit and be armchair critics. See this link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=525571&in_page_id=1770 MSDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.217.94 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about jimbo.Geni 22:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox's edits

Uh, your last two edits - what are you talking about? There was a discussion on this page that found "Personal legal history" or "Personal legal issues" to be preferable to "A sense of injustice" which is an editorial and not encyclopedic style heading. Additionally, the last part is unsourced - and I didn't remove it after it was reinserted, I simply asked for a source in an edit summary of an unrelated and minor edit. I don't know that my edits were a "blatant vio" of anything, and I'd prefer if in the future (particularly on this article) you think before you write. Avruch ^T 01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the previous discussion which was archived:

I'm having trouble seeing how the first one is NPOV. If anything, it is misleading to someone looking at the table of contents for the article and needlessly emphasizes a single quote from him. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know why anyone would edit war to insert 'Sense of injustice' into or back into the article. Personal Legal Issues seem a lot more generic and undeclarative. ^Avruchtalk 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with this. "A sense of injustice" is neither neutral nor encyclopedic as a title. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There was actually a discussion prior to that one, in which Jimbo expressed support for "A sense of injustice" and myself and one or two others disagreed. Avruch ^T 15:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Mr di Stefano has a huge "sense of Injustice," I see no problems with its inclusion. Giano (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that he does, but section titles should be neutral, not a reflection of what the subject of an article thinks. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

European lawyer

The characterization of di Stefano as a European lawyer and a link to it is very important as it clarifies a number of confusing side issues which can mislead the reader. Such as if he is not a member of the Law Society, how can he be a lawyer or practice law in England and Wales? If he is not licensed to practice law in England and Wales, how can he represent people as a lawyer in England and Wales? Likewise the language in the court decision about his being an Italian Advocato should remain as it similarly clarifies the situation. Fred Talk 11:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that neither the quote from Jackson nor the determination that he is a) a member of the Law Society or b) a current EC lawyer is supported by the source. I could be wrong, though - I've been shown a certain pdf that I'm sure you've seen, do you have reason to believe that the pdf circulating of the decision is incomplete or incorrect? It doesn't appear to be, and the quote is certainly not there. It does say that he should be afforded the access of a European lawyer, but only for a specific period of time that has passed. For reference, it is pages 263 through 271 of the 2003 World Law Report (I think). I was going to shoot you an e-mail about this today anywa, actually. Avruch ^T 12:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't send me any cases. I don't have time to read them. That he is a European lawyer is part of the framework, the background of the article. It is supported by the European Union's agreement on the matter. If you remove that orienting information from the beginning of the article, the reader can easily become confused. It is rather obvious from the newspaper coverage that one or two English jurists have not understood what was going on. Reporting their error does not help. Fred Talk 13:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - so it would seem that the .pdf I've got is not the same as the source for the above text, suggesting that the .pdf is of something other than the final decision. It certainly isn't complete documentation of the case, as its only a few pages long. Thanks. Avruch ^T 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• MSDS: Can you provide an actual citation to the transcript you've quoted above? That sequence doesn't appear in the cited reference (which is actually the World Law Report, and the pages I've reviewed). The WLR reprint also does not include a declaration that GdS is a "European lawyer," so if possible I would like to see a citation to that as well. Thanks, Avruch ^T 21:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "On the evidence before the court, Mr Di Stefano is an Italian avvocato who falls within the definition of "EEC lawyer" in the 1978 Order." European Economic Community lawyer, see European lawyer. Fred Talk 04:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• To me, it seemed like the judge was saying a) that there was no direct evidence to suggest di Stefano was not, at the time, a qualified European lawyer and that later on the judge b) determined that challenges to his status would violate his clients rights, and so put off definitively answering the question. The responsibility for determining his eligibility, at that point, went back to the Law Society after the conclusion of the case. It seems like the source doesn't support the conclusion that he is currently a European lawyer - he may well be, but it seems like the WLR reprint of the decision does not say so directly.
• The other issue is that the transcript, which contains the quote from the judge, is not part of the cited source. Is there an objection to reworking that quote so that, rather than being a direct quote, it is a synopsis of the courts position in that decision that can be cited to the WLR? The other option would be to provide a citation to the transcript itself, if that is something we normally do. I think we could, in this case, since the quote is from the presiding judge on the issue before the court. Still, we'd need a valid reference. Avruch ^T 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Fred on this one. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that, although there isn't a vote on - can you say what you agree with specifically, and why? Avruch ^T 22:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No but we do base ourselves on consensus and I thought Fred expressed himself well on this one and agreew ith him, specifically that we can call him a European lawyer and that this edit made the article worse not better. BLP means we do not paint a black picture of this individual, and this must be at the top of our minds in editing here, IMO. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you can't be specific about what you agree with, or how my edit (I haven't looked, I'm assuming that is my edit you linked to) made the article worse? I agree that we should be careful with BLPs, and I have been. Still, we shouldn't cite a fact in a BLP article to a source that doesn't support it, wouldn't you agree? Avruch ^T 22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Have to say AVRUCH you truly are a ------. Why do you wish to distort facts that a High Court Judge found about my father? Gosh you should get a life. Better still borrow some of dad's because in comparison you, in the words of Van Hoogstraten, seem to be a non entity just looking to slag people off. MSDS