Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Bag money and Richard Keith Page

"Rev" Page is an interesting character, I believe a friend of mine interviewed him for Mercia Radio many years ago.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

Rev Page died last year. Have respect for those not with us. You should be ashamed of yourself Mr Farmbrough talking of the dead in a way they cannot defend themselves. Answer your own charges against you first before you touch the dead. GIOVANNI DI STEFANO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.100.89 (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I said he was "interesting". I guess you interpret that your own way. Rich Farmbrough, 02:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Sources

There are a number of self-published cites we need to be careful of, and the cites to the JURIST appear to be to letters written by Stefano on their "hotline". These are only citable to support the fact that he wrote the letters, which seems in itself, not significant to the article. Moreover, I would urge caution on using news sources unchecked. Court records, or direct quotes of third parties are good sources, but the majority of narrative may be based on information gleaned from Stefano, who is known for imparting data at variance with the facts. Rich Farmbrough, 13:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC).

I have today issued SEPARATE criminal proceedings for criminal defamation against ENRIC NAVAL of Spain and RICHARD FARMBROUGH of the UK who to their credit have made their names, email addresses and locations known. I have taken this decision for obvious reasons as they are the advocates of criminal defamation against me and my son. I have also instructed lawyers in Hungary to issue separate proceedings under the new media law of unbalanced articles. Against ENRIC NAVAL I have also asked my colleagues in Spain to advance a case against him personally for criminal defamation contrary to the Spanish Criminal Code. Mr Farmbrough is well known to the judicial authorities in the UK and as he is currently under investigation for offences against the person defamation will be the least of his worries. GIOVANNI DI STEFANO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.100.89 (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Are these new "cases" similar to the earlier, phantom cases that never amounted to anything? I suppose you should be aware that your legal threats don't hold much weight here, and haven't enjoyed much success in pressuring editors in the past. Nathan T 18:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well we shall see how effective they all are. I have never pressurized anyone into anything simply compliance with a policy of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be about not about tittle tatle fishermans wife's gossip. But in anycase people have all understood how Wikipedia has become and you will see soon action that will surprise all of you that enjoy malfides is what you do. GDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.100.89 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr Di Stefano, why didn't you sue the the Irish Independent, The Guardian, the Council of Europe, the Times, the Scotsman, the Australian Associated Press, the Sunday Mail, the Independent, the Mirror, the Corriere della Sera and the New Zealand Herald when they published the informations that we are just summarizing here? They published the information in in tens of thousands of newspapers that got distributed all over their respective countries, and then they went and posted the information again in their websites where anyone can read them.
You could have forced them to publish a retraction, or at least you could have obtained a sentence saying that their affirmations are false. Now you could simply point us to those retractions and sentences (either posting here or via WP:OTRS), and we would simply remove the assertions or clarify that they were false. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

THE GUARDIAN were sued and sacked Rosie Cowan, the Scotsman were sued and since 2004 they have NEVER repeated their defamation. The article you have chosen to edit is hardly balanced. There are hundreds of other articles but you have only chosen to include quite absurd ones. For example the allegation regarding the Irish Solicitor you use the word 'accused' by whom? A corrupt struck off solicitor? He is struck off and in jail I am not! The allegation of killing 25,000 people in Yugoslavia? Do you think that people have not seen through you and Farmbrough? In case you do not know the law you will get a sharp lesson: repeating defamation is defamation and is no defence. And talking of Farmbrough I am looking into your life next and its going on the net. Whilst this article attracts like 4000 per month my diary attracts between 200,000 and 400,000 PER DAY! You will be hearing from the Spanish Prosecutor also as I have taken your advice and issuing proceedings in various jurisdictions until such time as we get a balanced (not necessarily positive) but balanced article. I have to say to your credit at least you have not hidden behind false names so I give you credit for that but as you people have stalked me and all the silly articles like the 1993 Viajes Melia of which I was just a director of Sandhurst not the owner, I have placed a team of IT Detectives on you and Farmbrough and whatever comes up its going on the net and to the community whether its tittle tattle or not as you have done with me. Mercifully in this case Jimbo Wales is not involved as I have that confirmation this is down to you and Farmbrough and now you must assume your own responsibilities. Best regards GDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.100.89 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Giovanni, you have my email address. Would you care sending me a copy of the sentence of the defamation cases against the Guardian and the Soctsman, so I can verify that their information is false? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sending nothing to anybody as I have to prove nothing other than the facts: neither the Guardian or Scotsman have ever defamed me frm those articles and in the case of the Guardian they sacked the journalist Rosie Cowan. I have made my position crystal clear and what action I have taken and will continue to take. This is not an encyclopedia article but a wholly unbalanced article of tittle tattle without any kind of real hard evidence. If I had been responsible for 25,000 murders would I be free today? All the tittle tattle has come from those like Irish Solicitor David O Shea that have been struck off as lawyers and jailed! Is that evidence? Well I am going to continue publishing about Farmbrough and you in all my news media outlets and notify all those that I know because both you and Farmbrough have stalked me via internet and rather than impartially recount events you have only included allegations from thieves and scoundrels. Look for example on the page of Bogoljub Karic now he is wanted by interpol on a warrant from Serbia but looking at his page butter would not melt in his mouth!!!! So now you want to play the IT stalking game OK I am up for it and have allocated staff to find all there is tittle tattle about both you and Farmbrough and we will publish and distribute it including on my news media sites, record company sites, film companies sites etc and distribute to all and sundry. You will say its not fair. Well life is not fair Enric. But I give you credit because you have not hidden behind a mirror so I am going easy on you as that is to your great credit. Best GDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.100.89 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

@GDS, I was busy during the weekend, I sent you an email.
I think that it's not correct to include the Shea and B-129 witness claims, because they are just witnesses at a trial. From the available material, the judge didn't rule on those parts, and I'm not sure that the judge ever mentioned them anywher. I had already seen Shea's article twice and the B-129 claim once, and I decided not to include it because there were no sources beyond that one, and it was only the claims of a witness. There is no factual confirmation or legal confirmation from the judge, so they could have gone and said that the Moon was green and made of cheese.
If nobody gives a good reason to keep those claims, including sources that can make factual confirmations of disconfirmations, or conclusions made by judges, or the claim being widely reproduced in newspapers, then I'll go ahead and remove those two bits (Shea and B-129). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
This morning I was given a lot of workload in Real life, I will be busy until the first days of February. I'll try to fix bits as I can. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Arrest and forthcoming extradition

I don't think Mr. Di Stefano will be contributing here in the foreseeable future.[1] Given that, I have removed the conflict of interest template at the top of this article. Prioryman (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC) I have rarely contributed to what is frankly rather dull and pathetic attempt at defaming me but as you see priory man whilst I show myself why do you hide behind pseudonyms if what you say is right put up your name and contact as I do mine...a free man.....Giovanni di stefano. Gdistefano1955@gmail.com 217.125.182.94 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I do not agree with your B-class assessment. I believe that it will be necessary to resolve first the issue of the phrase though di Stefano has been able to re-enter the US since then. Until Squeakbox discontinues deleting "whatever" he fancies, I do not see the removal of the phrase happening any time until a consensus is taken upon the issue of Squeakbox's editing. These two issues mean to me that there are more "significant issues" than... "this article is 'mostly complete and without major issues'" (i.e. the two distinctions between B-class rating and C-). Additionally, I find the very first sentence troubling. Giovanni Di Stefano is NOT a lawyer. At best, he is an Italian avvocato who represents clients (upon occasion) in the United Kingdom as a McKenzie Friend. Hag2 (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move (2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 15 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Giovanni Di Stefano (businessman) → Giovanni Di Stefano – WP:Primary topic. 2647 views versus 80 (sculptor), and 29 (architect). Marcus Qwertyus 02:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose. For reasons that should'nt even have to be mentioned. Stop this. Ceoil 16:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
If you wish for your arguments to carry any weight, those reasons will have to be mentioned. Rennell435 (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
In your openion. You know, I know. There it is. Game away. Ceoil 08:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Nominator demonstrates clear primary topic. No evidence nor arguments to the contrary have been given, and a quick Google search will show that he appears to be the most prominent, with all of the first-page results about him.[2] Rennell435 (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. None of the three are household names. The businessman obviously has a following in the news which has inflated the traffic stats, but not nearly enough to be considered the primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oddness

This page has once again slipped back into representing Stefano as a lawyer, and believing the stories he tells the press. Please note, the primary modus operandi of Stefano is to claim (or imply) he is the lawyer for a notorious person and give interviews. Time and again the most reputable media outlets, as well as tabloids and local papers report him as "Charles Manson's Lawyer" "Saddam Hussein's Lawyer" "Gary Glitter's Lawyer" - we know this is wrong, because we know that as a result of his fraud conviction in 1984 he is not even permitted to work in a UK Lawyers office (we have seen the Law Society dictat). We also know that he is not a registered lawyer in Italy despite various claims that he is. His secondary type of action is to write letters, these are then reported as if they were a legal action (and in some senses, they may be). For example he might write to the CRCC requesting a review of a notorious murderer's case, and then tell the press that he has "appealed" the case.

Everything about Stefano should be treated with the utmost scepticism, he has made either a hobby or a profession of hoodwinking the media for many years, so even normally reliable sources are suspect. Anything that describes him as a lawyer immediately shows that the source has been fooled.

Nonetheless, Stefano, who seems to be an intelligent man, has, amazingly been involved in real litigation other than his own prosecutions for fraud, and, apparently, money laundering. Firstly, he successfully persuaded a judge to overrule the governor of a prison which had not allowed him to represent a prisoner. This was on a technicality, Stefano was in fact not entitled to do so, but the governor had not allowed him to present, or had not asked to see, his (non-existent) credentials. Secondly a case was brought relating to Saddam Hussein in the US, involving reclaiming money owed to a US entity, as Stefano had put it about that he was Hussein's lawyer, he was involved in that case.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Cursed

I'm not sure if we (Wikipedia, or just the editors of this article) are included, but it seems likely. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4212643/What-the-devils-Giovanni-di-Stefano-playing-at.html Rich Farmbrough, 17:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC).

Lost Archives

Someone has made an edit which has resulted in the loss of the talk page archived discussions. I also note that the subject of this article is now down as (fraudster) whereby he was once (businessman). These edits have taken place in the last few hours i believe. This being the first thing i have ever added on wikipedia i have no idea how to correct it. DietJustice (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Re your first point, yes, those archives need to be moved. I don't particularly feel like moving 7 pages in a row myself, so let me go see if I can find an admin to do it (since they can move subpages along with a page). As to the change in title... well, that is what tends to happen when you get convicted of fraud. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough...i clearly give away my ignorance of wikipedia with my silly questions lol DietJustice (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
It's OK, I've been able to move the pages manually. 7 isn't that hard to do. :-) Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks mate...i thought we had lost that comedy gold! Its the archive that keeps on giving!DietJustice (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I had a glance through them - he certainly kept himself busy spinning lines here, didn't he? I don't suppose we'll hear from him again for a long time; he's facing a maximum 10 years behind bars, and I would expect him to get somewhere near that length of sentence given his record and the egregious nature of his offences this time round. We'll know within the next 18 hours. Prioryman (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

He's gone down for 14 years.[3] Evidently the judge threw the book at him for the money laundering, as that's the absolute maximum sentence for that offence. He won't be up for a parole review until July 2022 at the earliest. Prioryman (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link mate. I blog a lot about peoples interactions with their own wikipedia pages, this is the best and funniest example ive found yet. I guess we can call him 'fraudster' now...if thats how wikipedia works! DietJustice (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The ironic thing is that I saw he had boasted he was only going to face a maximum of 10 years for fraud. I guess he forgot about the 14 year penalty for money laundering... Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The more i read about him, the more i form the opinion that he is an example of all that is wrong in the world. Clearly lives in a dream world. I'll be keeping an eye on developments! DietJustice (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Fraudster?

I've brought up the new article title and the associated category at wp:blp/n for anybody who might be interested in discussing the recent move. user:j (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  • He has been convicted five separate times on dozens of individual counts of fraud, and has admitted others besides. Do we move dog fighting to puppy wrestling next? Guy (Help!) 01:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giovanni_Di_Stefano_(fraudster)/Archive_7&oldid=1136765717"