Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)

Request for mediation on this article

Template:RFMF --Enric Naval (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

di Stefano, entering the United States

So there appears to be a disagreement over detailing di Stefano's immigration status in the United States. There has been in the article for some time a statement needing citation that after Stefano was denied entry he was then subsequently allowed to enter. SB seems to be insisting based on that this uncited claim be included if any mention of that is in the article. Rather than push Squeakbox even further over 3RR, and rather than cause him to misuse the term "trolling" more, I figured we should discuss this on this page. So far three editors seem to have a consensus that this is NPOV without the line. Does anyone agree with SB? Also, I hope that SB will use this as an opportunity to explain his view in more detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox seems to think he owns this article, and that no other interpretation of NPOV but his could possibly be correct - even though no one appears to agree with his particular interpretation. He is in crystal clear violation of 3RR, and he's very lucky he hasn't already been blocked. SqueakBox, you are not the unilateral arbiter of content on this article. You do not have the authority to revert, over and over again, what a group of other people believe should be in the article. If you think something shouldn't be there, then discuss it on the talkpage like a normal editor. Avruch ^T 07:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Around 1992, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service deported him from the United States due to a fraud conviction on the UK on 1986. Months later he was denied re-entry. In 1995, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that Di Stefano did not have standing to challenge it under the Immigration and Nationality Act though di Stefano has been able to re-enter the US since then.

— Personal Legal History, paragraph 3

As I interpret the situation: the first part of the sentence ("In 1995, the United States...") is factual information. Whereas, the latter part ("...though di Stefano has been able...") is, so far, unsuspported by any reliable (and credible) fact. (To the best of my knowledge, the ONLY supporting evidence for this latter part comes from Mr. Di Stefano himself who claims that he has entered the US on four different occasions although he does not cite when, where, or why.) Unfortunately, the first part of the sentence without the second part does seem to be tilted towards a negative opinion heavily. After all, if a man has been deported, has tried to confront that ruling, and has lost a right to a hearing, then a reader could construe that there is good cause to infer that everything derogatory about Mr. Di Stefano can be equated with the word "undesirable". (Incidentally, I have a problem with the grammar of: "on the UK on 1986". I believe it would read better as: "in the UK in 1986".) Hag2 (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the sentence is tilted heavily. Facts sometimes are negative, and we are constrained by WP:V. The first part is verifiable, the second part is not. Presumably if the second part is true di Stefano can get someone in INS (or whatever it is calling itself now. Is that part of Homeland Security?) to say that he entered the country and get a statement to that effect. di Stefano certainly has the influence to do that. Until he does that, or something like that we are constrained by verifiability. NPOV and V do not mean we cannot have articles with negative facts. For a similar situation, one might wish to look at Kent Hovind where much of the verifiable information is negative. I've looked for a long time for something positive that's verifiable but I haven't succeeded nor have other editors. Neutral point of view is not sympathetic point of view. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I say not "just the sentence" is tilted heavily, but the entire biography. If the full wave of both the British and the Americans has crashed upon Di Stefano (as per the 1986-1995 rulings), then an average reader will begin to side with the flow of the tide. Personally, I do not care; Di Stefano has greater problems than whether or not he can enter the United States. However maintaining a neutral point of view throughout his biography seems to be the agenda. Perhaps it would be sufficient to relegate his current difference of opinion to the district court ruling to a footnote citation at the end of the sentence. I believe it is possible to find somewhere where Di Stefano has stated that he has "entered the US on four occasions". Since his remark would be a quote, it would not matter whether or not it was truthful. Hag2 (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, but if neither the US or the Brits are happy with him, then that's a verifiable fact. The impression an article gives doesn't make it non-neutral if it is well-sourced. Incidentally, I've looked for claims by Di Stefano that he has in fact entered the US and other than difs on this talk page and on the article page (which for obvious reasons are not reliable for a quote from him. That has serious OR and V issues) I have been unable to find them. If you find something better, more power to you. Another issue is that claiming that he can now enter the US could imply that the case was somehow overturned and thus poses a possible BLP issue about the judges themselves since having cases overturned does not reflect well on judges. Thus, without a better citation there's a BLP reason to remove the sentence.

Ah yes, Er, *smile* I have found that my reference to "four occasions" really refers to his entry into Auchland. So the burden at the moment is for someone -- anyone -- to provide any sort of reference (good, bad, or indifferent) that can authenticate the claim "though di Stefano has been able to re-enter the US since then." Without something, the claim is merely fiction. Hag2 (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no source that di Stefano is currently barred from entering the United States. By including a court decision from 1995 which concerns a conviction which is known to have been overturned the impression is created that he is currently barred, but no source to that effect is cited. Fred Talk 02:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Which conviction? And when was it overturned? It's a US ruling saying that the INS has the right to deny him a visa to enter the US. It's not a conviction, and he doesn't need to overturn it in order to re-enter the US, he just needs to convince the INS to give him a new visa in spite of the conviction at the UK. The point here is that the UK's conviction has not been overturned, so the original INS decision stands, until we can prove that he was given a new visa to enter the US.

To prove this, GDS can simply send a photocopy of his US visa to OTRS, where the date of entry on the country is after 1995. We could also find a newspaper article where he is interviewed by a journalist on US territory.

(Also, if you are saying that the UK conviction was overturned, notice that the UK conviction was in 1986, and the US ruling was on 1995, and the US ruling says nothing about the UK conviction being overturned). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm failing to see the relevancy of the whether or not he is currently allowed in the US to the UK conviction. Connecting whether or not the conviction was overturned is serious OR and moreover isn't that relevant. I'm puzzled by an attempt to remove well-sourced content based on a tenuous concern that it might be taken to imply something. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Things appear and disappear around here so frequently that I get a little foggy in my mind. Peter Popham's 3 July 2008 Independent "Devil's advocate: The world's most notorious lawyer defends himself" laid out the facts surrounding GDS's 1986 conviction, then incarceration, and subsequent appeal (see paragraphs 44-47). So it is hard to understand how someone believes that "the UK conviction was overturned" unless it is due to the fact that Popham's referenced-article was deleted for some reason. It should be noted also that within that article Di Stefano does not mention a second appeal, rather he claims that the records against him are forgeries.

The relevance of the 1986 conviction is in the expression "moral turpitude" to which GDS pleaded guilty. In viewing the facts surrounding the 1986 conviction, the 1995 US 53 F.3d 338 showed that "District Director Ferro [in Rome] denied Di Stefano's application for a waiver after weighing (a) Di Stefano's conviction in England and (b) the absence of any demonstration of rehabilitation against the purpose of Di Stefano's visit to the United States." The 53 F.3d 338 ruling upped the ante by "concluding that Di Stefano lacked standing to bring the matter before the district court and that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the waiver application." Which, more or less, has left Di Stefano exactly where Eric Naval has described him: he needs to obtain a visa, or show that he has one at present. And, in order to do that, he needs to demonstrate that he is worthy of having one. Until he does, it is doubtful that there is any truth in the phrase "though di Stefano has been able to re-enter the US since then". Thus, unless someone else can produce a verifiable and credible reference to support the phrase it is unsupported and fanciful. Since Squeakbox insists on placing the phrase in the sentence the burden now is upon him to produce support. Hag2 (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV trumps whatever argument as does the genuine BLP concerns here. We are an educational charity and that does nopt give us the right to stalk an individual like we are here. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy that you've decided to discuss things on this page as requested. However, I'm less than happy with your response which seems to be less than productive. It should be clear at this point that 1) many editors disagree with you about what constitutes a neutral description here and 2) what constitutes a BLP concern. This is especially relevant given that as I explained there is arguably a BLP issue in the other direction by including this claim. Your last point is simply irrelevant and frankly uncivil. There isn't any "stalking" going on, merely writing of an article using reliable sources about a well-known figure. I don't know what universe that constitutes stalking in, but not in mine, and not, I suspect, in most other peoples. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the BLP subject who feels stalked, and who has so often expressed concerns about this, you may think editors here are not stalking him but I am afraid that does not make it so, nor do a tiny cabal of editors in any way trump either BLP or NPOV concerns. Surely we are here as an eduactional encyclopedia and focussing obsessionally on his alleged personal legal difficulties using very poor sources is not the way to educate anybody. I am left with the impression that we do not care about GDS or his reputation, and this is not acceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox has an intractable desire to have this article be "balanced" in terms of criticism and positive information, which might be neutral in terms of pH but is certainly not compatible with NPOV. He's been edit warring for many months, ignoring consensus and refusing to consider other points of view in discussion on this page. So what can we do about this problem, other than bowing to the will of a persistent edit warrior with a clear point of view?

• A user conduct RfC
• A proposal on an admin noticeboard for a topic ban
• An request for arbitration

Which of these do folks suppose is most likely to move this problem towards resolution? Avruch ^T 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you elaborate on the three points, please? I believe a RfC has been exhausted on the issue of "NPOV trumps whatever...", and I do not know exactly what the "topic" is in the topic ban, unless your reference to the topic is : "di Stefano entering the U.S."? In the case of the latter, I believe SqueakBox has made himself very clear on that issue as well. Hag2 (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The topic would be "Giovanni di Stefano, and related articles." I'm not interested in an RfC about NPOV - that has been exhausted, and the community view on this issue is clear to most. A user conduct RfC, however, specifically about SqueakBox's conduct around this article - that is something we haven't tried (that I know). Avruch ^T 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are saying that you may consider banning (or removing) altogether an article on "the topic of Giovanni Di Stefano", I think I could follow that reasoning. Perhaps the time is not right to consider a biography on living individuals who do not want one. Di Stefano has made himself quite clear on this issue. A move such as that would be very gutsy...or a sign of weasel weakness. In my opinion there will always be room to maneuver in the future.

Personally I would cut the three paragraphs (mentioned below) from "Legal Career", drop the entire subsection "Personal Legal History", and move all citations involved (in that big edit) into a section labeled "Notes and References".

Anyone wishing to discover the "Life and times of Giovanni di Stefano" would need then only to click a newspaper article in the Reference section, and then determine whatever he wishes.

I believe these editorial moves would make the main article neutral, readable, and acceptable to Di Stefano. I believe also that Di Stefano would drop as a gesture of good faith his Wiki... lawsuit . Finally, I believe these moves would make the article appear (and sound) more encyclopedic. Hag2 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand Avruch. He is speaking of bannign Squeakbox from this and related articles. Your suggestion of pairing the article down or deleting it, both violate previous consensus on the matter. We do not remove articles about notable people simply because they threaten to sue the foundation. If the foundation feels a need to take the article down they will do so. Apart from that such behavior is unacceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You have evidence that a lawsuit has been filed?Geni 04:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe using Wikipedia as search criteria at Studio Legale Internazionale Diary will answer your question. I believe GDS uses the expression "lawsuit" and "criminal action" in several titles. In addtion, the level of his intimidation is further revealed by his 19 April 2008 entry "You must stand up to bullies". Hag2 (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that he didn't fill a lawsuit, instead he made a complaint to Rome's General Prosecutor, see relevant section on article, and a past discussion on the matter --Enric Naval (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you interpret these two sentences from "You must stand up to bullies": The reason of our formal notification is that whilst there is a pending lawsuit with a specific and designated amount requested in damages we are of the view any failure on the part of your most esteemed firm at not accounting such in the off balance sheet contingent liabilities may well lead those who are considering donating amounts to the Foundation into doing so under a serious misrepresentation. There is a contingent liability to the said companies as above as well as to all those named on a joint and several bases and this should be reflected on the balance sheet. Is GDS's use of the word lawsuit incorrect, or perhaps the wickedness of an Italian/English Bablefish translator? :) Hag2 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That page is from April 2008 [1], while his comments on the talk page that the lawsuit consists of raising a complaint to the General Prosecutor are from July 2008. Heh, I suppose that there is no mistranslation there, just different interpretations of what "pending lawsuit" and "I have sued for defamation" mean :P . Personally, I think that his use of sentences like "a legal action has been commenced in Italy" (in the linked page) leaves a lot of room for interpretation of what exactly he plans to do. As far as I know, he hasn't still filled any actual lawsuit as such. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nor should any editors here in any way make a deliberately negative articles because of alleged intimidation of wikipedians by di Stefano, that, were it to occur, would be a real abuse of editing privileges. And if we are talking about banning people from the article we should start with Josh and Avruch for their persistent ignoring of NPOV and BLP_ policies and attacking those trying to defend these policies. Violation of BLP of course also includes making accusations of intimidation by di Stefano. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I don't think anyone is trying to make a negative article in response to di Stefano, and again, most editors here seem to disagree with your idea about what constitutes NPOV and BLP relevant in this context. I strongly suggest that you get into your head that reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes NPOV. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well for the record I do not wish to see anyone banned from this article, and I certainly hold no grudges against you or Avruch, both of whom I know here from way back. Nor am I exactly editing the article in a repeated antagonizing way (in the sense that I have not edited it for days.). Thanks, SqueakBox 00:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So where do we stand on the phrase "though di Stefano has been able to re-enter the US since then"? It has been almost two weeks since the discussion began. It seems to me quite evident that there is no supporting documentation for the phrase. This, of course, is in direct violation of the principle of no original research. I believe that under these circumstances we are permitting a falsehood to be spread throughout the world. I do not believe Wikipedia would find this acceptable. Hag2 (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking for supporting evidence of any form and have been unable to find any. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

squeekbox has his passport visa entries but cannot be published as violate Data Protection Act and Italian Law. zieglar J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.41.243.108 (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a fair way to deal with this issue is to propose a consensus vote on removing the phrase, allowing ample time for any detractors to produce supporting evidence to OTRS. Since we have given already two weeks+, I propose an additional two weeks; thus taking us up to 10 September (or thereabouts). I believe also that such a proposal should be based upon a significant number of respondents e.g. greater-than-or-equal-to twenty, not just a few e.g. less-than-or-equal-to six. At present, I vote remove. Hag2 (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also support removal. I'm also a bit disturbed by the claim that Squeakbox has been given the relevant material and didn't mention it. I hope he will explain to us if he does have access and if so why he didn't mention this. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quite happy to see the phrase removed as long as we remove any mention of the incident whatsoever, otherwise are we not breaking NPOV, for neutrality, and BLP for having an article that the subject feels adversely the subject of the article. Sorry, Josh, what relevant material have I been given, if I had a reliable ref for the American entry I would of course add it. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nyet this is not a POV issues and BLP does not say what you appear to think it says.Geni 19:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"...as long as we remove any mention of the incident whatsoever" (Squeakbox). I believe that you are padding your argument, Squeakbox, with too much fluff. The phrase "tough...has been able..." clearly is an unsubstantiated fantasy. On the other hand the facts surrounding "any mention of the incident" are what they are facts. If the tone of the article becomes negative due to the facts presented, then that is the way "the cookie crumbles". If a living individual leads a less than stellar life, are you implying that his editors should ignore those facts and treat him as Cinderella? Hag2 (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not seem as though we are getting anywhere on the issue of the phrase though Di Stefano.... I changed the B-class rating on the entire article to ??? and left my comments on the separate subsection talkpage. Hag2 (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

di Stefano, entering the United States Break 1

GDS said on an interview [2] that he showed his visa to Jimbo, maybe we should ask him. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The other early 90s stuff

So asside from the new zealand stuff we have

The Sandhurst Assets thing can be traced though the Financial Times and the Daily Record (Glasgow)

MGM thing can be traced through variety LA times and more recention mentions in the gardian.

The run in with the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal[3].

At the present time the third appears to be the best documented. Geni 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The SOLS DISC TRIB is JOHN di stefano and evidently NOT GIOVANNI and unless you can prove otherwise again as SqueeqBox says one is making simply unfounded allegations....Pasquale Del Cavi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.125.242.27 (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

At this point the claim that mr di Stefano has not gone by the name of john during the 80s/parts of the early 90s is not credible. So far the US courts the New Zealand police and quite a selection of quality newspapers have reported that they are the same person.Geni 00:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr Shawe was struck of TWICE it would appear and hardly a reliable source and again the newspaper is The Guardian of years ago that we know was subject to a lawsuit and which the journalist Cowan was sacked shortly afterwards.... Pasquale Del Cavi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.125.242.27 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No records of any such lawsuit or sacking exist.Geni 00:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

But hey it isn't as if it hasn't been reported by others.Geni 00:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Leah Sumray

"Jeremy Leeming, defending, said Sumray apologised to the court, but her reasons for non-attendance was not to take a foreign holiday"

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article670762.ece

"In mitigation, Jeremy Leeming, said Sumray went on holiday to Fuerteventura because she was fearful of repercussions if she gave evidence."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-507364/Lottery-millionaire-jailed-ignoring-court-summons--going-sunshine-holiday-instead.html

"Jeremy Leeming, defending Sumray, said his client had apologised to the court, but she was young and naive and did not realise what a serious position she was putting herself in."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/11/lottery.uknews4

And we know Stefano is not allowed to practice in the UK or registered in Italy. How can we possibly report that he is representing Ian Strachan?

"Strachan is being represented by lawyer Giovanni di Stefano, of London and Rome.

Dubbed the "devil's advocate", he has a client list which includes Saddam Hussein, Harold Shipman, Moors murderer Ian Brady and M25 killer Kenneth Noye.

But the 51-year-old appears to have no formal legal qualifications and the Law Society refuses to recognise him as a solicitor, not least because of a previous conviction for fraud."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490216/Sex-drugs-blackmail-plot-royal-Im-innocent.html

Since Strachan's legal team appeared to be headed by Simon Jowett, this seems like just another of Stefano's publicity stunts. Rich Farmbrough, 00:57 31 August 2008 (GMT).

If anyone here actually has any common sense they would stop and cease this nonsense..re Strachan see this site, ie Strachan's own website: [4] ...how many more supposed 'editors' are being paid by Wikipedia to try and find something on Di Stefano???? Pasquale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.70 (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The sun in particular is not a very good source and the daily mail is also probably not a good choice for this article.Geni 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Regular readers will be amused

"His new legal team includes controversial Frenchman Jacques Verges - known as "the Devil's advocate" - as well as four Italian lawyers and a French-Lebanese."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7409933.stm

Rich Farmbrough, 01:04 31 August 2008 (GMT).

This is a salient point. Consequently I believe the labeling of both Di Stefano and Verges as an advocate for "The Devil" require us to make a notation of this fact in both articles such as: "The Devil's advocate[nb 1]". I will be happy to perform this task if no one objects. It requires creating a subsection within "References" called "Notes", and then adding coding for a <ref group=nb name=ex02>...</ref>, with a relevant remark contained therein. I believe both articles will benefit greatly from the addition of "Notes". Hag2 (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

notice: I will perform this task within 24 hours if no one objects. Hag2 (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Giovanni di Stefano → Giovanni Di Stefano — Capitalization preferred by the subject of the article, sources use both capitalizations interchangeably. See archived discussion where nobody raised any issues. — Enric Naval (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary Glitter?

Well I suppose his absence from the list of purported clients was like Mrs Bun being missing from the Baker's family. He is not a 'convicted pedophile', or even a convicted paedophile. He was convicted in relation to child pornography and for "committing obscene acts with two girls". Paedophilia in itself is not a crime, even in Vietnam. So I have deleted that from the description. But did the Irish Independednt just take Di Stefano's (or a press release put out by him) word that he acted for him? Because when he came back to England I saw GG's lawyer on television and it wasn't GDS. David Corker was the solicitor DavidFarmbrough (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

google news search suggests there is a press release flaoting around.Geni 00:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

To assume that GG has one lawyer is OR, and rather crass OR at that. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe but past experence suggests that claims that Di Stefano is someone's lawyer do not always turn out to be

true.Geni 01:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So am I to assume that anyone famous (or infamous) these days needs a solicitor, a barrister and a 'Spanish Avocato'? It seems a bit unlikely frankly as I can't see what expertise Di Stefano would bring to Gary Glitter's circumstances. I am just not sure that newspapers are that reliable these days, as they tend to rely too much on press releases or on unverifiable sources themselves.DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

we have seen your example of STRACHAN with you saying that GDS is not Strachan lawyer YET when you are confronted with Strachan's own website who CONFIRMS that GDS is the MAIN lawyer then you fail even to apologise...what is required is the real motivation behind the likes of Naval, Geni etc who are actually stalking and harrasing GDS in this manner and using what is supposed to be an encyclopedia as a tool.... Pasquale de Santiis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.224.235 (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, 'Pasquale', but I can't recall my saying that he wasn't Strachan's lawyer. I might have said that it remains to be supported by evidence that he is his lawyer. You mention that 'Strachan's own website' confirms that GDS is the main lawyer, but if you mean his MySpace page, then this reads more like a GDS website than a Strachan website - it's full of links to GDS and the only subject of the blog is the 'Royal Blackmail Case', the blog is updated by a third party, and I would suggest that despite the page bearing Ian Strachan's name it was more than likely set up by someone on his behalf.

The big problem with much of this article is that much of it can be traced back directly or indirectly to its subject, and when someone tries to include something from a third party source, that is speedily deleted. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC for New Zealand inclusion

Is the expulsion from New Zealand enough notable, relevant, NPOV, BLP-compliant, and appropiate for a biography? See proposed draft for inclusion and diff of inclusion[5].

There are multiple sources from national and regional mainstream newspapers describing the events directly or referring to them, so verifiability and reliability should not be a problem. See the draft for a list of sources.

Please remember that this is not a straw poll, so state reasons for why you support one option or other. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a way shorter version (updated to remove unwarranted assumptions):

On 2003, Giovanni di Stefano travelled to New Zealand to make multi-million property deals. In 2003, Giovanni di Stefano travelled to New Zealand, where he made several multi-million bids on property. [1][2][3][4][5] The authorities discovered that he had not disclosed a conviction in England in 1986, and declared him a prohibited inmigrant. [1][4][6]

• "shorter version" looks good to me. Hag2 (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• That draft appears to give the incident its proper weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Date should be 1990, not 2003, according to cited material. The material should not give the impression that he is at present excluded from traveling to New Zealand. He may or may not be. Fred Talk 20:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Or that there is an outstanding fraud conviction. Fred Talk 21:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Good for inclusion, draft is OK

• Support. Several points.

Notability: I think that it's a notable event on the biography of any person:

1. having gone to a country "apparently with up to $100 million to invest, and he sought to buy $59 million of Auckland property"[6]
2. having then been prohibited from entering the country as a "prohibited immigrant" for involucration on a fraud case after claiming to National Business Review that it was your cousin that was convicted[7],
3. getting the events reported several times on a national newspaper, with mentions like having been "chased out of Auckland by an aggressive TV crew"[8],
4. getting called "international fraudster"[9] and other things on the same paper,
5. losing multi-million deals because of these events [10]
6. getting this event used against you on regional scottish media when you are trying to buy a local futbol club 4 years later[11].
7. having the expulsion mentioned when talking about you on an australian newspaper[12] and several british newspapers
8. two years later the International Herald Tribune considering that it's a notable enough event to mention it as a statement of fact on an article about Pakatoa Island's status on the "Properties" section.

collapsed long list of additional reasons
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reliability issues: I think that there is no doubt left that the events actually happened. We have enough published third-party secondary reliable sources. the sources are mainstream newspapers that are in use on other BLP articles with no controversy: New Zealand Press Association, Australian Associated Press, NZ Herald, International Herald Tribune, Sidney Morning Herald, The Scotsman. In particular, the draft relies on many places on NZ Herald sources, see list of articles that link to the newspaper, where many BLPs are listed. as an apart, the events are also echoed on the magazine of an association dependant on UK's Law Society[13], altough this source is not used on the draft. Weight issues: I think that it has enough weight on Giovanni's life and reputation to merit a short paragraph with 4-5 sentences (this is only for the New Zealand thing, btw): 1 sentence: mentioning the quantities he intented to spend and the attempt to develop on Pakatoa Island, 1-2 sentences: discovery of the conviction 1 sentence: the expulsion by authorities at airport when returning, and the reasons given. 1 short sentence: the mention of this event on scottish media when trying to buy the futbol club It shouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight when compared with "Music producer" (1 short paragraph, 2 sentences), "Football" (1 long paragraph, 10 sentences), "Founder of political party" (2 short paragraphs, 2 sentences), "Claim of lawsuit against Wikipedia" (1 paragraph, 2 sentences). The events are added to the bottom of the article, on the "Personal legal history" section, as agreed with other editors, and are not mentioned on the lead to avoid weight issues. Privacy: Mr. Di Stefano is a public figure, the New Zealand events are public and have been publicited widely. On New Zealand on a national newspaper (NZ Herald) and TV (by Paul Holmes (broadcaster), whose article says "hosting New Zealand's number one rating breakfast show (...) widely reputed to be New Zealand's highest-paid broadcasting personality"), and then on a scottish newspaper on UK (The Scotsman), an australian newspaper (Sidney Morning Herald), an international newspaper (Int. Herald Tribune), two news agencies (New Zealand Press Association and Australian AP) which in turn made the news appear on Yahoo News. Defamation: The events are public, the sourcing is excellent with reports by multiple reliable sources (so it's most probably true), relevant to the subject (as justified on "notability" section of my comment), BLP and Neutrality: the wording has been tweaked to be as non-partisan, neutral, and factual as posible, criticism present on the sources has been left out as not relevant to the subject's notability in spite of been heavily sourced (out of the 10 sources, 9 call him "fraudster" or "convicted fraudster", some citing a british judge that called him "a nature's fraudster") Gossip: This is not some rumor about someone having a new secret lover, being reported by yellow press. What we are talking here is of multi-million property deals going sour and a prohibition of entering a country, all reported at multiple mainstream newspapers. And all affecting the reputation of a public figure at the crucial moment of adquiring a football club for several millions of dollars. See previous thread and above section for comments, support, and what appears to be consensus per WP:SILENCE (it wasn't).

--Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• support. Fairly significant event in New Zealand and some impact internationaly. Rhe fingerprint thing has some significance towards the Giovanni/john thing.Geni
• support but no strong preference about which form we use. Certainly being not permitted to enter a major country is not a trivial event and it was reported in multiple reliable sources. We must not forget that our obligation is to present content neutrally, not to to present content sympathetically. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good enough, but merits less space or a different writing

• Support the shorter version (which can be integrated into the paragraph on 1986 affair - as a consequence of that case). As long as the NZ authority did not indict him for a particular wrongdoing - other than the 1986 memories - there's no need to incite what looks like another suspicion of fraud. NVO (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Zee problem is the very short version states something we can't really be sure of.Geni 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hum, I don't get it. What is that something that we can't be really be sure of? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Di Stefanos motivations for going to NZ.Geni 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, I see what you mean. Does this correct the problem? [14] --Enric Naval (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'll just reiterate my sentiments from a previous RfC. This topic is significant, factual, and relevant. It can be sourced reliably and presented neutrally. However it should be kept as short as possible, perhaps a medium-length sentence or less such as, In XXXX, he was refused entry to NZ on account of his record., or even preface it with, Newspapers have reported that... to make it more neutral. We don't need the details of the investigation, which is not as important as the outcome. In general we should take our guidance on what to cover from our most reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough, should not be mentioned at all

• Suppoort Its tabloid news, these papers latch onto gossip to make money. We, on the other hand, are an educational encyclopedia which cares deeply about BLP, and this inclusion serves no purpose other than to do di Stefano down. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• At heart in the issue is the fingerprint analysis. Finding multiple mainstream articles that merely recite a fact ad naseum (i.e. Di Stefano was fingerprinted and found to be a John di Stefano), is hardly as good as discovering who first fingerprinted Di Stefano, and why, when, and where, and what is the accuracy of those records; for example, are they Interpol records? Jim Cusack writing in the Irish Independent wrote that someone named "John di Stefano" was convicted of bank robbery in Clifden, Ireland in 1975 and then subsequently was referred to a mental hospital where he was diagnosed as insane; yet the validity of that accusation depends upon finding the relevant supporting documents at the 1975 Galway Circuit Court, not within the pages of mainstream newspapers (which merely repeat Cusack's inferences). Criminal accusations have been leveled against Giovanni Di Stefano in several European countries. Those accusations make Di Stefano's New Zealand explusion seem minor; yet getting to the truth before repeating those accusations in a Wikipedia BLP should be a primary concern. Hag2 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

who first did it is of no importatance it that matters is someone did and the New Zealand authoritories were able to get hold of the. We know the UK authorities will have fingerprinted anyone they have convicted. We know that New Zealand has friendly diplomatic relationships with the UK. If a request went through interpol or some other channel is of no real significance and in any case the information on that is unlikely to in the public domain. The records of the expulsion and the reasons for it will be possession of the New Zealand government/police and the British government/police. When would probably be some time in 86. Why would be because he was arrested or convicted. Accuracy well fingerprint technology is fairly well established. Where would be England or Wales. At the moment we are talking about the events in New Zealand rather than the 1970s. If you wish to discuss what happened in the 1970s that is a separate debate.Geni 18:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing. This draft is about what the New Zealand authorities thought that they had discovered, not about whether the NZ authorities were wrong or not on their assesment at the time of the expulsion. The fact is, fingerprint or not, the NZ authorities were convinced that he had a conviction, and so they kicked him out banned him accordingly. Later on, it was made clear that the NZ authorities were right, when GDS said that he was the one accused on the conviction and that he had appealed it twice, but that's a different matter for a different draft. Ídem for other accusations of other stuff, they have nothing to do with why the NZ authorities banned him and they belong to a different draft. Let's keep the different issues separated or it will become a messs. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP and New Zealand

Just so we know if it is or is not Squeakbox vs. the world on this one, can anyone who agrees that the New Zealand information is a violation of the BLP policy please speak up and explain why? (Fred?). If no arguments are forthcoming, I suggest we take it for opinions to BLP/N. Avruch ^T 14:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Very great care demanded

Unless you can source, to numerous impeccable sources, an ironclad link between the expulsion and this particular Giovanni di Stefano, then walk away now. Single-sourced is not good enough (cf. The Scotsman). If you can, then attribute it and cite anywhere that di Stefano has asserted to the contrary. Bear in mind that he is still apparently appearing in court in the UK, which rather suggests that some at least of the Scotsman's material is (as he asserts) another di Stefano. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

From the looks of it, there are three separate publications among the 5 or 6 citations added for the New Zealand information. It seems clear that the reporters and publishers involved saw the di Stefano in their work as the same di Stefano this article is about. Avruch ^T 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Guy, you wrote: "Bear in mind that he is still apparently appearing in court in the UK" As I understand: the UK allows just about anyone to represent another as a McKenzie Friend. This does not mean that Di Stefano is recognized by the UK as a qualified, or accredited legal counsel. Di Stefano has been asked repeatedly for credentials, but has provided little other than dubious papers such as a Power of Attorney, and a driver's license (I have both of those. Would you want me for your attorney?) Also, the argument that the U.S. recognizes him in Iraqi to argue cases before the Iraqi courts does not mean that the U.S. recognizes him as a qualified and accredited attorney at law. In the U.S., Di Stefano would need to pass the bar as well as show cause why his morals are not disreputable. He has failed in the U.S. on those two scores so far. What Iraq does with him is Iraqi business. Lastly, Italy's governing authority on legal issues has expressed doubt about Di Stefano's qualifications too. About the only thing going in favor of Di Stefano on this particular issue is that Di Stefano is a very clever fellow, and one does not proselytize, argue, debate, or mince words with Di Stefano without being prepared to appear as a fool. Hag2 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary of long post: there is no doubt that the sources are talking about the same person. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that I took great care. First of all, I found eleven sources mentioning linking the "real" GDS to the NZ expulsion, see the draft here: 2 from The Scotsman, 6 from NZ Herald, 1 from Sydney Morning Herald, 1 from International Herald Tribune and 1 from Australian Associated Press, via Yahoo! News. Second, to remove any doubts that it could a different person that the subject of the article, I took into account that some of the sources give certain details that can be used verify his identity. (I'll have to mention his wife, which I have avoided doing until now for the sake of GDS' privacy, notice that the woman mentioned here is not the current wife) See, the first five sources on the draft cite the first name and place of birth of his wife[15][16][17][18][19] as well as the 11th one [20], and, two years after the NZ thing, the fifth source cites that GDS said that he could fight the US deportation because he was married to a US citizen, and the source then cites that same person, [21]. That fifth source also says that the New Zealand's GDS was expulsed because it was discovered a relationship with a company called Pathe Communications belonging to a guy called Giancarlo Parretti, who GDS had helped to buy MGM throught Credit Lyonasse. Three years after the NZ banning Variety reported that GDS had a relationship with this Parreti person through the buying of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) and reports that he is married with a woman by the same first name as the other sources and that they had used Credit Lyonasse for financing [22]. Years later, the program HARDtalk of the BBC interviews GDS and states that he tried to buy MGM film studios, and this time they are talking about the subject of this article for sure, including references to Devil's advocate nickname, Sadam, Arkan, and a photography [23]. The relationship of the "real" GDS with MGM is also confirmed by the "Corriere de la Sera"[24][25] (automatic translation from italian) Now, let's see, how many different John Di Stefanos have been convicted for fraud on the UK before 1993 and had a wife with the exact same first name with a difference of at most three years and participated on the buying of the Metro Goldwin Mayer company and bought it in association with a person with the same first name and last name? What are the chances that these two Di Stefanos are two different persons? Notice how "giovanni" is simply "john" in italian, so it's perfectly feasible that he got called John when he was living on the UK before becoming famous, and changed it later to the italian translation of his name. btw, avoid mentioning anywhere the name of any family member, as they are not public figures themselves --Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein - Documents sent to SqueakBox

Some months ago, someone posting as "MSDS" said that GDS sent Squeaxbox "documents from the US District Court and others" to Squeakbox which apparently proved that GDS acted for Saddam Hussein. Did you receive them, Squeakbox? And will you publish them? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

see link

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:wOfR-3w-D_8J:www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/news/ourNews/prelimMotion.doc+giovanni+di+stefano%2Bsaddam%2Bus+district+court&hl=it&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=it&client=firefox-a

MSDS first son of GDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.155.76 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This other document also refers to GDS as a defendant of Hussein, and lists the names of the rest of defendants for Saddam's case [26]. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I probably did receive them, but have looked through my emails and cannot find them. My emails go back to last November. What do you mean by publish? David. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It was Michelle - MSDS - GDS's son who suggested that documents would be 'published' - I assume he meant made available by a link such as that which he has put above. However the 'evidence' that he acted for Hussein is still a document from GDS's own website purporting to be a 'motion' lodged in the USA in the District of Columbia Court asking for them to make an order allowing GDS access to Hussein, which even says in it " Mr. Di Stefano is not an agent of Defendant Saddam Hussein for service of process and has no authority from Mr. Hussein to accept service on his behalf of this complaint.". Even if this were lodged then I do not think this is evidence of any link between Hussein and Stefano other than emanating from Stefano. In a nutshell, I could have lodged that document and claimed to be representing him. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP

BLP needs a "high degree of sensitivity" (BLP opening)and including this scurrilous NZ press story from years ago is very insensitive. Its inclusion clearly also fails our conservative approach to BLP articles, as with the US visa issue, neither of these pieces have been written either sensitively or conservatively. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper, it is not our job to be sensationalist or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" (opening of BLP). We are being the primary vehicle for promoting this old history concerning allegations concerning the private life of Di Stefano, all, this material is clearly BLP material and therefore must be removed. The BLP continues "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." These tales clearly have an immense possibility to damage GDS's reputaion and we are the primary vehicle doing this. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would question whether they have been written about insensitively, because it was mere reportage, without opinion that you have removed. There is no judgement or subjectivity involved. Unless of course you think that anything the subject of an article doesn't like should be removed in the cause of 'sensitivity'? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

David, I think you may want to go HERE, sign into the "agreement" (i.e. parties involved), and then find your way HERE. I am new at this sort of thing, but I think that there is a procedure in place at the moment which requires these three steps. Hag2 (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Journalists are people too. How do you claim you uncited wholey inaccurate description of their work fits with BLP?Geni 13:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

european lawyer again

About this, it was taken out after this April 2008 archived discussion and this other July 2008 archived discussion, including the statements by the Law Society that he is not registered as an European Lawyer. We use "lawyer" because sources refer to him as a lawyer. The reason it's confusing is because there is no source explaining clearly what role he plays exactly on the UK trials that he has been at.

He claimed himself on July 2004 that he is neither a barrister nor a solicitor and does not profess to be one [27]. Notice that he was questioned on January 2004 about his qualifications[28] and that all quotes from the Law Society are from 2004 or later, and later on that same month there is also this article "Mr di Stefano insisted he can practise in the UK under EC Directive 77/249, but the Law Society contested this claim."[29]. The Law Society statement about him not being registered as an European Lawyer is from 2004. From the sources, it would seem that he acted as an european lawyer until 2004, when he was challenged, and the Law Society then refused him the status that he had been using; I found no source explaining the whole thing.

Anyways, the Law Society has stated very clearly that he is not a European Lawyer, so adding a wikilink would be making an incorrect statement. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No one has been confused by leaving out the European lawyer bit. In fact, to the average reader, I think describing him as an Italian lawyer is much less confusing - especially since there is no evidence to suggest that he meets the definition of a "European lawyer." We've been over this a number of times, and the consensus (barring Fred's objection) seems to clearly be that the EL bit of the lede should stay out. Avruch ^T 19:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So how does he practice law in England? The judges in any court he appears have right to demand proof of his status at any time. Does he simply appear at press conferences? Fred Talk 09:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Has he, in fact, appeared in any court in England and Wales lately or had to produce proof of his status? Fred Talk 09:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In 2004 one judge demanded proof, but other judge said "He has been conducting this appeal. That’s the position, isn’t it? We shall consider what, if anything, needs to be done."[30]. On that same year the Law Society's public relations officer stated "Giovanni di Stefano is not a solicitor, or a registered foreign lawyer, or a registered European lawyer" [31]. You can see more quotes at Talk:Giovanni_Di_Stefano/Archive_3#list_of_quotes where the Law Society is cited as saying that they couldn't verify either his status as italian lawyer. What is confusing is to say that he is an European Lawyer, when there are multiple sources citing the most reliable source on the field clearly stating that he is not one. From what the sources say, it would appear that he had been acting as an european lawyer even althought he wasn't really one because no one had challenged his status until then, altought no sources say exactly this. So, don't re-add the wikilink until you get sources proving that he is acting as an actual registered european lawyer. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fred, you wrote: "So how does he practice law in England?" It is my understanding that Di Stefano acts as a McKenzie Friend (before the UK courts). Or, in other words, he hires the law firm of Paul Martin & Co. to act on behalf of the client, performs any necessary research, advises Paul Martin & Co., perhaps even pays expenses, but does not practice law. Hag2 (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting hypothesis, let's try to figure out what is going on. This article in the Independent may hold valuable clues. Fred Talk 21:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If he does act as a "McKenzie friend", we need an article on it and a link to it. Fred Talk 21:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

www.avvocati.it

What is this site: http://www.avvocati.it/ricerca/avv_ricerca_exe.php3 (Type "GIOVANNI DI STEFANO" in the search box and his information will come up.) Is this an official site or simply a site he has put up? Fred Talk 22:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also check http://www.ecba.org/contactslist/contacts-search-country.php (A little confusing, but search Italy). What are the requirements for listing? This is the Criminal Defence Lawyers in Europe website and contains a prominent disclaimer "DISCLAIMER

The contact details on the website are provided as information only and should not be regarded as any form of recommendation by the ECBA. The ECBA recommends that anyone who requires the assistance of a lawyer makes their own independent checks on the quality and reputation of their legal advisor. The accuracy of the contact details of this website are the sole responsibility of those individuals and the ECBA takes no responsibility for any matters that may arise due to any inaccuracies. The individual or organisation must ensure that the provision of these details on the ECBA website does not contravene any national legislation, guidance or professional regulations and the ECBA takes no responsibility for any such breaches." Fred Talk 22:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

For advoccati.it, it's owned by a company called "SedLex Informatica srl". They have a legal notice page, I google-translated the relevant part:

“ SedLex Informatica srl can not in any way be held responsible for the content of sites listed.

We decline, therefore, all responsibility for any inaccuracies REPORT ON THE DATA PROVIDED AND RESULTS OBTAINED.

This site does not constitute the news, did not, however, a recurrent and is updated through the availability of the material.[32]

”

The details are provided by the people themselves, apparently with no kind of check against any official registry of lawyers "- Sign up for free in Avvocati.it database and creating a card of the Studio with all claims made in the form (components, head of secretariat, addresses, articles and publications, qualifications, types of customers, membership associations, commodities treated)."[33]

The ECBA website was discussed at Talk:Giovanni_Di_Stefano/Archive_2#Article_in_The_Independent --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fred, much of this was addressed at length during times where you were not editing regularly. It may make sense for you to read through the archives to catch up on what we've already determined about GdS' status as a lawyer in Italy, the United Kingdom and Europe as a whole. Avruch ^T

Have you evidence that he is a licensed lawyer in Italy? Fred Talk 14:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we found evidence that he was registered with regulatory bodies in Italy, but the "Italian lawyer" bit of the article stays because he is recognized as, at least, a trained lawyer and of Italian nationality. Avruch ^T 15:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you think you have the final word. What is the basis of that power? Fred Talk 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have written "has stayed." If you have a basis to object to describing him as an Italian lawyer, feel free. I don't have the final word on anything, but I do think the fact that we have discussed and dealt with these issues in depth previously means something and that some due diligence on your part is called for before bringing them up again. Avruch ^T 17:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I know better. I am taking a new look at this. Sometimes going away for a while helps with that. Fred Talk 18:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the articles talking about his cases always say that he is a lawyer. It's true that the Law Society and the Independent journalist couldn't find him registered as an official italian lawyer. However, the definition of lawyer changes from country to country, and I'm not sure of what do you need to do on Italy to be called an advoccato. Personally, I'm not comfortable with removing the lawyer bit unless there is a direct declaration from the Italian Lawyer registry about his lawyer status. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of introductory language which directly addresses the uncertainty which exists regarding his status. I would of course include a link to European lawyer, as I regard that as vital to understanding by the reader of the issues involved, perhaps along the line that whether he is a European lawyer is uncertain. I am particularly disturbed by lack of evidence of actual recent court appearances and lack of information regarding any co-counsel. I think there are some new rules in place regarding practice in England and Wales by European lawyers and I'm not sure he has satisfied them. Would it be out of place for us to inquire of the Law Society? Fred Talk 18:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I can answer your question fred, I AM NOT REPEAT NOT registered with the Law Society of England and Wales because the conclusion of the van Hoog decision by Mr Justice Jackson was such that under Directive 77/249 you need ONLY register if nyou INTEND to practise FULL time in a EU Country..if you practise 'from time to time' NO REGISTRATION is necessary and as such since there was an appeal which the Gov of HMP Belmarsh lost, with costs to me, it was left at that....I have NOT repeat NOT appeared in Court in the UK since 2005 May and although I have many ongoing appeal cases, admin court cases, parole reviews, NO TRIALS, my sole role now (only in the UK) is limited to written submissions as for eg. in the case of Biggs where I successfully argued (by written submission) that the old law applies regarding his parole. I have NEVER aòppeared as a Mackenzie friend ever. If I wanted to practise in the UK other than 'from time to time' I would be compelled to register with The Law Society or The Bar Council and be compelled into adhering to the tax system in the UK as opposed to my fiscal residence. GIOVANNI DI STEFANO gds1955@tiscali.it or gdistefano1955@fastwebnet.it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.239.133 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

About that ruling in 2002, it said "A person seeking to provide any services may be requested to verify his status as an EEC lawyer by a competent authority (in this case the Law Society) (art. 12) Where such a request has been made (which in this case it has not) the EEC lawyer shall not, except to the extent (if any) allowed by the competent authority, be entitled to provide services until he has verified his status to the satisfaction of that authority (art. 13)"[34]. In the "The further challenges to GDS which are foreshadowed - five" section it says that the defendant had failed to make a request to the Law Society on time, and that any request at that point would not affect the outcome of the case. That left open the possibility that someone asked the Law Society to verify your status (apparently, the prison governor decided not to push the issue). I quote "The Law Society may require GDS to verify his status at anytime, but it would not be a lawful exercise of discretion were they to do so for GDS to be then denied access to visit the Claimant in prison.". The judge didn't verify your status, didn't ask the Law Society to verify your status, and implied that it would be improper of the Law Society to ask about your status due to what they intended to prevent you from doing.

The point here is that this ruling is from 2002, and that around January 2004 an actual request to verify your status was done to the Law Society [35](this is discussed on the "european lawyer again" section above). This request was not bound by the 2002 ruling, and, as I read the case, it was explicitily allowed, the request that were disallowed were the ones intended specifically to preventing you from visiting persons who asked your legal help. Then on 2004 the competent authority (Law Society) said that they couldn't verify your lawyer status on Italy. I quote ""Giovanni di Stefano is not a solicitor, or a registered foreign lawyer, or a registered European lawyer," says Law Society press and public relations officer Geoffrey Negus."[36]. As far as I know, that means that you can't act as an European lawyer on the UK, neither full-time nor partial time, whether you like it or not. I'm sorry, but it doesn't really look to me like a question of whether you feel like registering or not. To paraphrase the quote I made above of the court case, it looks like you are plain out not "entitled to provide services until [you have] verified [your] status to the satisfaction of that authority [the Law Society]", and, looking at the Law Society's statements, you are "[not] allowed by the competent authority [to any extent]". I'm sorry, but this is the only possible interpretation that I can make out of the sources.

@Fred, I would write: "acted as an European lawyer until 2004, when the Law Society stated that he wasn't a registered European lawyer". I'm not sure is this counts as WP:SYNTHesis of sources. Another possible wording would be "acted as an European lawyer until 2004, when the Law Society couldn't verify his status as a registered lawyer on Italy", or simply, "acted as an European lawyer until 2004" (without giving any explanation of why until 2004). Maaaaybe make a longer explanation on the body of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If we wanted to, we could include a brief paragraph in the article (but not the lead) about his status as a lawyer. I'm not sure how useful that would be, though. The fact is that his work is an advocate in the area of law, and he's frequently described as a lawyer. I think we can describe him as a lawyer without using specifically defined terms (such as European lawyer). GdS answer above simply does not represent the whole truth. Most of us, if not all, have read the decision he references in detail and it clearly does not declare what he says it does. Even if it did, it would not necessarily be relevant to his current status given the other developments since. If we don't know the answer, and no sources provide us with a definitive take on the matter, then we should just leave it alone rather than risk being completely wrong. Avruch ^T 00:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been a rather unpleasant learning experience. We need to craft an article which does not mislead. Fred Talk 02:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)